Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 175

Thread: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan

  1. #141
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,848

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    The idea that you pay for a tax cut out of future growth is the Bush II tax cut of 2001/03... it is a big reason we are in this mess. The very reason the Romney plan is being challenged is because it was represented as being funded out of tax restructuring; not some hypothetical. The inherent lie, however, is that it needs the hypothetical to work; it CANNOT be funded solely from tax restructuring.

    The indictment is that the Romney taxcut is just a re-packaged Bush taxcut; a double down on failed economic policies. That is all the Dems are saying and NO ONE has been able to refute it.
    Evidently you didn't read Obama's own words and the subsequent calling out of Professor Rosen. Obama misrepresented his work to make his case. The Professor refuted him personally. Obama, since then hasn't changed his tune. He continues to use the same rhetoric. Evidently Obama doesn't mind lying.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  2. #142
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,016

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    I suggest you read the TPC study.

    Tax Reform

    First, there are not enough deductions that can be eliminated to make a 20% across tax cut revenue neutral, especially if cap gains is off the table, which Romney said it was. There is a $86B shortfall if you eliminate all

    Second, even if you eliminated all deductions, the deduction value is disproportionately beneficial to middle, upper middle and lower upper income wage earners. Eliminating them would effect a shift in burden from the very wealthy to the middle, which is pretty much having the middle pay for tax cuts for the most wealthy, which is the original assertion.

    This "passing it off to congress" is deliberately vague and designed to obfuscate the issue. Presidents generally propose workable plans to congress, which then get written by congress. Saying I want to cut taxes by 20%, you make it work congress, is not workable, if impossible. The fact is, as the TPC study and numerous others said it can not be done. The only other tangible approach would be to eliminate all deductions AND effect a tax cut of less than 20%.

    Mitt Romney's Tax Proposals: Understanding the Debate | Brookings Institution

    I appreciate the fact that everyone loves tax cuts. We would all like to have diet of nothing but ice cream as well. Santa Mitt and his #1 elf Paul are certainly whispering sweet nothings in your ear.... they are promising you a life of utopia to lure you up to their hotel room where..... enough of this metaphor, you get the picture.
    I have read the TPC study. As I said, it makes assumptions, thus its just a guess. Its not fact, and thats the only point I was making.

  3. #143
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Whoops!!! Another liberal talking point bites the dust.

    So...I wonder...is the Obama team dumb?...or are they liars?

    In either case, they've learned to not mess with a Princeton Professor's work.


    I felt this was the key point:

    It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal.
    Romney can call for its complete repeal all he wants, but without a majority in the House and 60 in the Senate acting in concert with him he'll be stuck figuring out how to pay for it.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  4. #144
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,848

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    I felt this was the key point:



    Romney can call for its complete repeal all he wants, but without a majority in the House and 60 in the Senate acting in concert with him he'll be stuck figuring out how to pay for it.
    Without the House and Senate, electing Romney will be only marginally better than what we have right now...but still better.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  5. #145
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    03-24-13 @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    133

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    So a person makes $200,000 in income you want them to pay $160,000 in tax? Why would they make that when they can just make $40,000 and get money from the goverment to boot?
    First, to be clear, I am not in favor of taxing anybody 80%. I am, however, all for letting the Bush tax cuts expire on those making OVER $250k yr. Which is my understanding of what this Administration wants to do.

    But, the higher tax rate does not work the way you just described. The higher tax rate comes into effect AFTER $200k ($250k or what ever level you set it as)
    Which means, the first $200k is taxed at the regular rate, anything earned ABOVE that is taxed at the higher rate.

    So no, the person making $200k yr does not get $40k after taxes.


    Also, I believe you are incorrect about the $40k getting aid from the government. Unless you have a bunch of kids, you are well above the limit to qualify for basic government assistance. We can split hairs if you like, and get into how many children, do those children have special needs, yadda yadda. BUT, the government aid most people think of, no, not going to qualify.

    When the citizens of this country stop hacking away at each other, and let our government know we're done with all the bickering, maybe then they can get back to the real business of Governing.

  6. #146
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,922

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen View Post
    First, to be clear, I am not in favor of taxing anybody 80%. I am, however, all for letting the Bush tax cuts expire on those making OVER $250k yr. Which is my understanding of what this Administration wants to do.

    But, the higher tax rate does not work the way you just described. The higher tax rate comes into effect AFTER $200k ($250k or what ever level you set it as)
    Which means, the first $200k is taxed at the regular rate, anything earned ABOVE that is taxed at the higher rate.

    So no, the person making $200k yr does not get $40k after taxes.


    Also, I believe you are incorrect about the $40k getting aid from the government. Unless you have a bunch of kids, you are well above the limit to qualify for basic government assistance. We can split hairs if you like, and get into how many children, do those children have special needs, yadda yadda. BUT, the government aid most people think of, no, not going to qualify.

    When the citizens of this country stop hacking away at each other, and let our government know we're done with all the bickering, maybe then they can get back to the real business of Governing.
    First of all I was responding to a specific assertation by 274ina. She had a very specific opinion and I wanted to know how far it went.

    That said, I am opposed to higher taxes in ANY form. I am Taxed Enough Already. TEA, as in TEA party. The government does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. 3 plus trillion dollors a YEAR in revenues is more than sufficent to do EVERYTHING the government needs to do and then some. THERE should not be ANY deficite spending. The government doenst need ONE penny more in taxes, they need to CUT spending NOW. The government is getting MORE than 50% of my money now in all the various forms of taxes. The church only wants 10%. Government sure as hell aint the church, they dont even come close.

    You wonder why we are bickering? I will tell you. I am tired of you and yours, taking from me mine. I dont want the government governing. In fact I want gridlock. I dont want one single new law passed. I want the government to take a long holiday. I want my lawmakers so good at golf they can qualify for the PGA tour. So you want me to stop argueing? I will make it simple, stay out of my pockets and leave me alone, both you and the government. Then we will get along fabulously.

    For families with more than one child I believe earned income credits and other tax benies.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  7. #147
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    03-24-13 @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    133

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    First of all I was responding to a specific assertation by 274ina. She had a very specific opinion and I wanted to know how far it went.

    That said, I am opposed to higher taxes in ANY form. I am Taxed Enough Already. TEA, as in TEA party. The government does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. 3 plus trillion dollors a YEAR in revenues is more than sufficent to do EVERYTHING the government needs to do and then some. THERE should not be ANY deficite spending. The government doenst need ONE penny more in taxes, they need to CUT spending NOW. The government is getting MORE than 50% of my money now in all the various forms of taxes. The church only wants 10%. Government sure as hell aint the church, they dont even come close.

    You wonder why we are bickering? I will tell you. I am tired of you and yours, taking from me mine. I dont want the government governing. In fact I want gridlock. I dont want one single new law passed. I want the government to take a long holiday. I want my lawmakers so good at golf they can qualify for the PGA tour. So you want me to stop argueing? I will make it simple, stay out of my pockets and leave me alone, both you and the government. Then we will get along fabulously.

    For families with more than one child I believe earned income credits and other tax benies.
    Me and my kind???

    Don't even throw that kinda BS this way. In talking to a lot of conservatives they talk the talk, but when it comes to them personally, the walk is gimped.
    One conservative goes on and on about spending. Then talks about a family member who suffers from mental illness. Gee, guess it's OK HE gets government aid.
    It's OK MY taxes are spent sending him a check every month, putting him up in a state hospital and getting medical care when he decides he doesn't want to take his meds and goes off the deep end. That's OK. It's OK for another conservative I know to get government aid for a special needs child. BUT............

    Save me your indignations. You don't want government services? You don't want to pay for those government services? Move elsewhere. Because there isn't a citizen in this country that does not benefit from some sort of government financed service in some way, shape or form.

    AND the more prosperous you've been in this country, it's a pretty good bet the more you have benefitted from some form of government. Damn Skippy you need to pay the same, if not slightly higher rate in taxes.

    I like to think about the people in TN who didn't want to pay for the $75.00 a yr for fire protection services, but when their house was burning down, they wanted the fire department to put it out. They were willing to cut a check then. When the fire department didn't stop the fire, the homeowners called them horrible people.
    I bet the homeowners were conservatives.

  8. #148
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,922

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen View Post
    Me and my kind???

    Don't even throw that kinda BS this way. In talking to a lot of conservatives they talk the talk, but when it comes to them personally, the walk is gimped.
    One conservative goes on and on about spending. Then talks about a family member who suffers from mental illness. Gee, guess it's OK HE gets government aid.
    It's OK MY taxes are spent sending him a check every month, putting him up in a state hospital and getting medical care when he decides he doesn't want to take his meds and goes off the deep end. That's OK. It's OK for another conservative I know to get government aid for a special needs child. BUT............

    Save me your indignations. You don't want government services? You don't want to pay for those government services? Move elsewhere. Because there isn't a citizen in this country that does not benefit from some sort of government financed service in some way, shape or form.

    AND the more prosperous you've been in this country, it's a pretty good bet the more you have benefitted from some form of government. Damn Skippy you need to pay the same, if not slightly higher rate in taxes.

    I like to think about the people in TN who didn't want to pay for the $75.00 a yr for fire protection services, but when their house was burning down, they wanted the fire department to put it out. They were willing to cut a check then. When the fire department didn't stop the fire, the homeowners called them horrible people.
    I bet the homeowners were conservatives.
    First I aint that person you are talking about. Second I dont take any government handouts or take any money from them that I did not earn by providing service in exchange for. Thirdly you seem sure intent on raising MY taxes and not yours why pray tell is that? Hmmm. ALL of the government services I use I pay for with fees and excise taxes of some sort. I'm a logistics company so I will list some of the the taxes I pay for utilizing the roads. It should be enlightning for you. Lets start with the HVUT tax otherwise known as a 2290. $550 a year per truck. If I buy tires for that truck I pay the tax its 10.50+.50 per pound over 90lbs+ an excise tax of 12% of the gross sales price. There are on a given truck about 18 tires, generaly which need to be replaced depending on wear every year to two years. A set of tires cheap ones right now go for 2200 for a set of eight, Steer tires are more expensive and run about 750 for 2. Mind you the prices quoted may not include instalation, just the tires. So thats 5100 for a set of tires not installed of which a 12% tax is tacked on plus the 207 for the other tire tax. There are two tire taxes k? Now I spend money on fuel. That is taxed. There is the sales tax which in the state of Califonia is 8.25% then theres the state fuel tax of 40.5 cents a gallon Califonia fuel tax, federal fuel tax is 24.4cents a gallon, generally depending on how far you run the normal fill up will be about 120 gallons at $4.20 would be $504 dollors of which $77.88 would be excise tax from fed and state. Dont forget $40.32 in sales tax. Times this by twice a week per truck. Everything Ive been giving as far as numbers are actually lower than actual. If I buy a new truck which costs nowdays about $150000 there is a sales tax of 8.25% a federal excise tax of 12%, dont forget we register it to go on the road every year. Like cars regitering a new truck is more expensive because the regitration is based on sales price. In this case 150,000 dollors. Registration for the state of California is $3500 for one truck. Total tax bill for a new truck with registration is $33,875 thats on top of the 150000 you already paid. mind you ALL of these taxes are supposed to pay for the roads, I dont know where you live but here in the Golden State our roads now have Arkansaws roads old reputation, IE what road?, it long ass giant pothole. Drinking coffee while driving is not a good idea here. I am not done with all the taxes I pay just to use the road. Did I mention Califonia doesnt want older Trucks on the road so they are phasing my equipment out for me? Isnt that nice of them? I hope you have a better idea what I am talking about, especially when I say with "enthusiasim" I am Taxed Enough Already.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  9. #149
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Without the House and Senate, electing Romney will be only marginally better than what we have right now...but still better.
    That kind of flawed thinking is the chief reason that the best you can do is marginally better.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  10. #150
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,848

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    That kind of flawed thinking is the chief reason that the best you can do is marginally better.
    That's okay. Marginally better than Obama is much better than Obama.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •