• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Can Romney get away with the Lollipop Tax Cut 'Plan' Until November?

Dittohead not! said:
Actually, Romney did tell us his plan.
The plan is to work with Congress to come up with a workable tax code that is, as much as possible, revenue neutral and more fair than the current code.

And, that's a good plan, if Congress will actually begin to function as a body interested in solving the nation's problems.

Which is a big if, but it's still better than a presidential candidate telling us what precise legislation he plans to pass, like so many of them do, when they count on the populace not to understand how the Constitution and the balance of powers really work.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
What he did was propose an [impossible] Lollipop, 20%, Across the board Income tax cut - but NOT mention a Single thing he would cut to pay for it/offset it.
If you just want "work with congress" you propose NO specific number, just "a cut" or... BOTH sides with numbers/names, or... Spending Cuts/deduction eliminations First.
One LARGE popular side/Tax cut is NO plan, it's electioneering.

I might add: this is while the truly serious are deciding how much of the Bush 10% cut we can even afford to keep.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Wrong.
What he did was propose an [impossible] Lollipop, 20%, Across the board Income tax cut - but NOT mention a Single thing he would cut to pay for it/offset it.
If you just want "work with congress" you propose NO specific number, just "a cut" or... BOTH sides with numbers/names, or... Spending Cuts/deduction eliminations First.
One LARGE popular side/Tax cut is NO plan, it's electioneering.

I might add: this is while the truly serious are deciding how much of the Bush 10% cut we can even afford to keep.
Click to expand...

While you're right about that 20%, and about it being electioneering, he also said he wants to make up for that cut by closing "loopholes", i.e., deductions, and that's the part that he's saying he'll work with Congress to accomplish.

and, if anyone knows about tax deductions, it's Romney.
 
It is just a loophole if I don't get it. If I do get it, then it is a fair deduction/credit ;)
 
Dittohead not! said:
While you're right about that 20%, and about it being electioneering, he also said he wants to make up for that cut by closing "loopholes", i.e., deductions, and that's the part that he's saying he'll work with Congress to accomplish.

and, if anyone knows about tax deductions, it's Romney.
Click to expand...
Yes, he's "said" he wants to close "loopholes". Except 7 Trllion worth of Lophles" would encompass most of them and all the popular ones like employers Health Care deduction and Mortgage Interest deduction. The latter of which would Hurt the the recovery, not jump start it.
So he cannot Name a SINGLE one.
Its NOT a 'plan' it's a lollipop/Lie.

Again, I've outlined the problem throughout the string.
 
Dittohead not! said:
While you're right about that 20%, and about it being electioneering, he also said he wants to make up for that cut by closing "loopholes", i.e., deductions, and that's the part that he's saying he'll work with Congress to accomplish.

and, if anyone knows about tax deductions, it's Romney.
Click to expand...

But why do we have to hold in faith what those deductions will be? If I'm going to vote for a 7 point drop for the wealthiest americans and a 2 point drop for the poorest, then I absolutely need to know the details - otherwise it smacks of the same old crap with a different excuse that we've been doing all along. If Obama can't use a stalemated congress (complete with Grover Norquist bottlenecks) as his excuse for minimal progress over the last 4 years, than Romney sure as hell can't toss his details over the fence for somebody else to deal with either.
 
mbig said:
Yes, he's "said" he wants to close "loopholes". Except 7 Trllion worth of Lophles" would encompass most of them and all the popular ones like employers Health Care deduction and Mortgage Interest deduction. The latter of which would Hurt the the recovery, not jump start it.
So he cannot Name a SINGLE one.
Its NOT a 'plan' it's a lollipop/Lie.

Again, I've outlined the problem throughout the string.
Click to expand...

Seven trillion worth of loopholes?

That's more than double the entire federal budget.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Seven trillion worth of loopholes?

That's more than double the entire federal budget.
Click to expand...
That's over 10 Years.
People have been using those numbers/projections in the debate.
The specific deduction problem I mentioned remains and remains unaddressed.
 
The better plan, and one that I could get behind, would be if he proposed to cut certain deductions and loopholes, and actually named them out, and then said that he would get the CBO to figure out exactly how much that would equal out to, and then cut tax rates by that exact amount. That way we get a simpler tax code, and we don't have to trust the politician that he can magically find enough deductions to match his 20% tax cut, which most likely he won't find and he'll use fuzzy math like Bush did and claim that tax cuts create more revenue.
 
mbig said:
That's over 10 Years.
People have been using those numbers/projections in the debate.
The specific deduction problem I mentioned remains and remains unaddressed.
Click to expand...

Oh, so it's 700B on average. I'm more than a little bit skeptical about those ten year projections, as the people making them won't be in office that long, and my suspicion is that most of the cuts/savings are projected to be near the end of that ten year term.

But, anyway, you're correct that the specific deductions haven't been outlined. The details are left for Congress to work out in a bill. If (big if) Congress can be prevailed upon to actually come up with a workable plan, then the Romney plan is workable. If not, then it will go the way of every other presidential candidates' promises of legislation that the POTUS has no power to enact.
 
roughdraft274 said:
The better plan, and one that I could get behind, would be if he proposed to cut certain deductions and loopholes, and actually named them out, and then said that he would get the CBO to figure out exactly how much that would equal out to, and then cut tax rates by that exact amount. That way we get a simpler tax code, and we don't have to trust the politician that he can magically find enough deductions to match his 20% tax cut, which most likely he won't find and he'll use fuzzy math like Bush did and claim that tax cuts create more revenue.
Click to expand...

That would be the honest approach.
 
roughdraft274 said:
The better plan, and one that I could get behind, would be if he proposed to cut certain deductions and loopholes, and actually named them out, and then said that he would get the CBO to figure out exactly how much that would equal out to, and then cut tax rates by that exact amount. That way we get a simpler tax code, and we don't have to trust the politician that he can magically find enough deductions to match his 20% tax cut, which most likely he won't find and he'll use fuzzy math like Bush did and claim that tax cuts create more revenue.
Click to expand...

I would hope that this type of implementation would be what the candidates would do once elected. Unfortunately, that doesn't sell on the campaign trail, unless you are Ross Perot.

Break out the information boards!
Ross%20Perot%20deficit.jpg
 
Dittohead not! said:
Oh, so it's 700B on average. I'm more than a little bit skeptical about those ten year projections, as the people making them won't be in office that long, and my suspicion is that most of the cuts/savings are projected to be near the end of that ten year term.

But, anyway, you're correct that the specific deductions haven't been outlined. The details are left for Congress to work out in a bill. If (big if) Congress can be prevailed upon to actually come up with a workable plan, then the Romney plan is workable. If not, then it will go the way of every other presidential candidates' promises of legislation that the POTUS has no power to enact.
Click to expand...
There's NO "workable plan" as congress not about to cut all the necessary deductions to pay offset the cuts.
Cuts that would Necessarily hit the Middle Class Romney says he wouldn't.
There again, is NO "workable plan".
Period.
You didn't read the string. see ie, post #2 in which I explain the plan does not add up .. unless you add a VAT which would Blow it to Hell and not help the economy.
It's BS and you are gratuitously speaking/fudging your way through this in order to be able to say it is "workable", but you have NO idea what you're talking about.
 
MaggieD said:
Yeah, I didn't read your post carefully enough. My suggestions do nothing to make up for a 20% across-the-board tax cut.



Your post is somewhat misleading, because it's talking about mortgage interest deductions, etc., when Romney is discussing closing loopholes. Mortgage interest deductions et al are not loopholes.
Click to expand...

Actually if you google what the loopholes in our tax code are, every one that has been mentioned here is in fact a loophole.
 
If Obama can get elected on "Hope" and "Change," Romney can get away with this. It's really the same if you think about it.
 
sure he can..... the loud and vocal extremists which comprise the Obama hate crowd will accept almost anything as long as it is not Obama. Details or the lack of details in the Romney plan mean nothing to them.
 
Carleen said:
Actually if you google what the loopholes in our tax code are, every one that has been mentioned here is in fact a loophole.
Click to expand...

No, mortgage interest deductions, the tax on capital gains, et al are not loopholes. Tax loopholes are created by ambiguities in the law that allow people to evade taxes. The deductions that have been talked about in this thread are clearly entitled. You're incorrect.
 
mbig said:
There's NO "workable plan" as congress not about to cut all the necessary deductions to pay offset the cuts.
Cuts that would Necessarily hit the Middle Class Romney says he wouldn't.
There again, is NO "workable plan".
Period.
You didn't read the string. see ie, post #2 in which I explain the plan does not add up .. unless you add a VAT which would Blow it to Hell and not help the economy.
It's BS and you are gratuitously speaking/fudging your way through this in order to be able to say it is "workable", but you have NO idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Romney didn't say that there was a workable plan, only that he would work with Congress to come up with a plan.

While I share your skepticism that such a plan will ever see the light of day, what is the alternative? We can't continue to spend 10K per taxpayer more than we take in every year.

If Romney can work with Congress to come up with a compromise solution that makes some meaningful cuts to government spending, perhaps then we can begin to see some light at the end of this dark tunnel we're in, maybe even one that doesn't turn out to be an oncoming train.

While it is unlikely that any great changes will take place either way, what are the odds that anything will change if Obama is reelected?

Oh, and that 20% tax cut? Don't start spending it yet. That is just campaign rhetoric.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Romney didn't say that there was a workable plan, only that he would work with Congress to come up with a plan.
Click to expand...
This a Untrue and Incoherent nonsense speak.

Dittohead said:
While I share your skepticism that such a plan will ever see the light of day, what is the alternative? We can't continue to spend 10K per taxpayer more than we take in every year.
Click to expand...
Precisely!
The alternative would be to propose unpopular Spending Cuts First instead of ONLY the populist/Impossible/Deficit-Increasing Tax Cut first.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
This a Untrue and Incoherent nonsense speak.
Click to expand...

No, it is a recognition of the limits on the powers of the president. The candidate can promise the moon and stars, but nothing will get done unless he can work with Congress.

mbig said:
Precisely!
The alternative would be to propose unpopular Spending Cuts First instead of ONLY the populist/Impossible/Deficit-Increasing Tax Cut first.
Click to expand...

Yes, and any candidate who proposed the sorts of spending cuts that are actually necessary would never get elected.

First step, get elected. If that doesn't happen, then that's all, folks.
Next, work with Congress to see what can be accomplished.
Third step: Hope the voters don't remember all those pie in the sky campaign promises.
 
MaggieD said:
No, mortgage interest deductions, the tax on capital gains, et al are not loopholes. Tax loopholes are created by ambiguities in the law that allow people to evade taxes. The deductions that have been talked about in this thread are clearly entitled. You're incorrect.
Click to expand...

Then so is the website I looked it up on.
 
MaggieD said:
No, mortgage interest deductions, the tax on capital gains, et al are not loopholes. Tax loopholes are created by ambiguities in the law that allow people to evade taxes. The deductions that have been talked about in this thread are clearly entitled. You're incorrect.
Click to expand...

Thank you, people are using to word loophole to make it easier to swallow.

In Oklahoma there used to be a law that let public schools run a half day preschool class and get paid for a full day for it, to encourage preschool. So the school systems hatched a scheme where they would run multiple half day classes in the same day and collect huge amounts of money, where preschooler money was buying new buildings for the highschools even. This was a loophole, something legal, but clearly unintended. It was fixed brilliantly though, which is a.story for another time.

Most of the "loopholes" thusfar discussed are indeed legit tax legislation used in the manner it was intended, or at least close enough.
 
MaggieD said:
Why would that surprise you? Half the **** we read on the internet is downright lies.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is.

And, yes, there is a difference between "loopholes" and "tax exemptions", and Romney hasn't been using the term correctly. What he really is talking about is cutting tax rates while eliminating some of the deductions.

Which, BTW, is exactly what Reagan promoted back in the '80s.
 
Tax avoidance is not tax evasion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom