• 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 someone explain Romny's tax plan?

joko104 said:
Romney has been more specific about his tax plan than any candidate I can ever remember.
Click to expand...

Indeed. He's been very clear on ading $2 trillion to the debt to pay for his mindless military ejaculations.
 
solletica said:
Indeed. He's been very clear on ading $2 trillion to the debt to pay for his mindless military ejaculations.
Click to expand...

not true, but you already knew that. why are you liberals able to lie continually without any feelings of guilt?
 
mbig said:
So I see 4 cuts and 1 maintain. IOW, a Much larger Deficit in the name of stimulus; something they are criticizing Obama for now.
Romney said He would reduce it, Not that he would allow it higher in the name of stimulus.

Of course, the GOP would pass identical legislation turned down by Obama if a Republican proposed it.
ie, the expensive Medicare Part D, Passed UNFUNDED under Bush, while Obamacare which IS funded is a "budget Buster".
'Mandates', as well was Republican idea until Obama liked it.

And of course Bush's 10% Cut worked so well didn't it?
ergo, Clinton called Romney's plan, "Double down on Trickle down".
And as I said, Romney really has No "plan", it's Half a plan/an election year populist Lollipop.

I had a string on this Not long ago:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...way-lollipop-tax-cut-plan-until-november.html
very few takers because there was/is no answer.
BTW, as explained in the string just linked, it Does add up as Ryan proposed it 3 years go: WITH the VAT it needs to be Revenue Neutral.
But math is unpopular with our idiot populace so he just dropped it.
Click to expand...

You failed to consider economic growth and spending cuts. Romneys tax changes are not the only things hes proposing.
 
SheWolf said:
He isn't standing by his plan. He isn't saying which deductions he'll cut, and Ryan said they'll wait until they try to put it through Congress. Romney doesn't seem to have the passion or the willingness to say what would even be on or off the table. What if the bill ends up just cutting the AMT and all capital gains taxes, would he be willing to sign that and call it the work of the Congress?

What does he stand for?
Click to expand...

What I just posted. Cutting tax rates and reducing the amount of income deductions the wealthy can take. He is not running for legislator, thus theres no reason to propose a detailed legislative plan.
 
SheWolf said:
What is Romney going to do if he is president... just propose ideas and hand them to Congress, and sign whatever he gets back????

It doesn't make any sense. He actually stands for something, but what is it? He won't say... it's weird
Click to expand...

He says, you just dont hear.
 
SheWolf said:
I said earlier that they are the same as candidates in many ways, but I don't remember Obama being vague on his tax plan to the extent of Romney. The experts say Romney is going to add to the deficit, so what's the difference between them. If Romney wins, he is going to be hated as much as Obama, especially if he quickly adds over 5 trillion to the deficit. I don't see him being a great president.
Click to expand...

Well, then lets go back in the time machine to the DNC convention where Obama layed out his tax plan.

Obama said:
Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.
Click to expand...

What taxes? What tax breaks? What high tech jobs is he defining?

And Im not being anti-obama. All Presidents do this. They are not legislators. Their job is to execute the law, command the military, and approve or veto the bills that congress presents.
 
jonny5 said:
You failed to consider economic growth and spending cuts. Rom neys tax changes are not the only things hes proposing.
Click to expand...
:^)
What "spending cuts", Can you Name A Significant one? Much less the $8 Trillion needed? (a few mil for PBS doesn't count)

He criticized Obama for 'cutting Medicare'.
He agreed with Obama on Education spending.
Unlike Obama, He wants to INCREASE defense spending $2 Trillion.
So there AIN'T enough cuts left .. unless

Romney’s budget would require a 40% cut to everything but Medicare, Social Security, and defense

Romney has presented only half a plan', if that.
Tax Cuts, spending maintenance/increases.
Reaganomics III.
Both I and II ending with Stock market Crashes (1987/2007) and Big deficits.

So Who "Failed"?
YOU did.
You're not even in the game.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
:^)
What "spending cuts", Can you Name A Significant one? Much less the $8 Trillion needed? (a few mil for PBS doesn't count)

He criticized Obama for 'cutting Medicare'.
He agreed with Obama on Education spending.
Unlike Obama, He wants to INCREASE defense spending $2 Trillion.
So there AIN'T enough cuts left .. unless

Romney’s budget would require a 40% cut to everything but Medicare, Social Security, and defense

Romney has presented only half a plan', if that.
Tax Cuts, spending maintenance/increases.
Reaganomics III.
Both I and II ending with Stock market Crashes (1987/2007) and Big deficits.

So Who "Failed"?
YOU did.
You're not even in the game.
Click to expand...

Ill name two.

-repeal obamacare
-privatize amtrak

So Who "Failed"?
YOU did.
You're not even in the game.
 
jonny5 said:
Ill name two.

-repeal obamacare
Click to expand...
Obamacare is already Funded with taxes and Medicare cuts.

Johny5 said:
-privatize amtrak
Click to expand...
Amtrak loses about $1 Billion a year.
NOT "Significant" in a $7-$8 Trillion Tax Cut over 10 years.
NOT Close.

You didn't answer the rest of my text or my WashingtonPost article either.. for obvious reasons.

'Fail' again.
Math Rules!
 
Last edited:
Mitt Romney makes so sense. He doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich, wants to increase military spending greatly on a war that we don't need and the only thing he wants to take funding out of is PBS. Clearly Romney can't do the math and neither can Republicans
 
mbig said:
Obamacare is already Funded with taxes and Medicare cuts.


Amtrak loses about $1 Billion a year.
NOT "Significant" in a $7-$8 Trillion Tax Cut over 10 years.
NOT Close.

You didn't answer the rest of my text or my WashingtonPost article either.. for obvious reasons.

'Fail' again.
Math Rules!
Click to expand...

You didnt ask anything else. Fail again. But I can do this all day, so heres 2 more

-block grants for medicaid
-repeal davis-bacon
 
DGK925 said:
Mitt Romney makes so sense. He doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich, wants to increase military spending greatly on a war that we don't need and the only thing he wants to take funding out of is PBS. Clearly Romney can't do the math and neither can Republicans
Click to expand...

DGK925 makes no sense. Romney is not proposing increasing military spending 'greatly', and has proposed taking funding out of many things besides PBS, of which several have been mentioned in this very thread. Clearly DGK925 hasnt read this thread and neither have many others posting.
 
DGK925 said:
Mitt Romney makes so sense. He doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich, wants to increase military spending greatly on a war that we don't need and the only thing he wants to take funding out of is PBS. Clearly Romney can't do the math and neither can Republicans
Click to expand...

Romney knows how to add up electoral votes. That's all he really cares about, the rest is just details.

Vague promises of "change" and "hope"....feels like I've seen this movie before....
 
imagep said:
He says "the top 5% will continue to pay 60% of our income taxes", and "tax cuts for the middle class", so if the wealthy will continue to pay the same amount, and the middle class get tax cuts, then who pays for the middle class tax cuts? The poor who's tax rates will also be cut by 20% and who will not loose any tax deductions? Unless I am missing something, the math isn't there.

And isn't that contrary to the conservative mantra of "cut taxes for the job creators" (assuming that job creators are the wealthy)? "I'm going to cut tax rates, but don't expect any tax cuts because I am going to lower tax deductions". Well I am all for simplifying the tax code, but if the net result is neutral, then we haven't really done much. If lower effective taxes result in economic growth, then why isn't Romney suggesting lower effective taxes.

And has Romny actually suggested anything that will actually improve our economy?

Looks to me that he is simply suggesting more of the same. At this point, since the republicans have turned moderate, and since the democrats are trying their best to appear to be moderate, there is no difference what-so-ever. If all we are getting is more of the same, then why in the heck should I vote for him? Or even bother to vote?
Click to expand...

Reduce spending and tax less is the gest. I suppose it is more complicated than that, which I would be willing to explain but I don't particularly feel like writing a thesis right now.

Besides, it's not really Romney's plan it is Ryan's plan...
 
jonny5 said:
You didnt ask anything else. Fail again. But I can do this all day, so heres 2 more

-block grants for medicaid
-repeal davis-bacon
Click to expand...
I asked for "Significant" you did NOT/Could Not provide it.
You posted one Non-expense and one INsignificant one.
You LOST (badly) again.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
Besides, it's not really Romney's plan it is Ryan's plan...
Click to expand...

That's not what Ryan's been saying, but I guess if that makes you feel better about voting for "change," go for it.
 
Haven't read through more than a few pages of this thread, so don't know if the original question was seriously addressed (i.e., it's all been snark from the pro-Obama crowd).

So while I'm not sure of all the ins and outs either, my understanding of the framework is as follows:

- 20% across the board cut in tax rates, scaled to the extent required to maintain neutrality

- scaling back (not eliminating) deductions

Not sure there is much mroe to it, unless of course you don't believe him (which is fair, just figured I would get out what he has so inarticulately proposed and people can assess on their own).

Re the first point, he said at the first debate that any tax cut would be deficit neutral and that he would not increase taxes on middle income earners. for both of these to be true, he said that the top rates would not come down all the way if that required either middle class tax hikes or an increase in deficits. Why he hasn't been more explicit about this I have no idea.

Re the second point, "eliminating deductions" has a nice ring to the fiscally conservative purist, but that doesn't seem to be what he is actually proposing. Rather, he seems to be focused on scaling back deductions based on income (in much the same way various other benefits (at least here in Canada) are clawed back with income). So, for example, he would not be eliminating a capital gains tax, but he would be scaling it back to a 0% rate on someone earning 200k and something else (no idea whether it is the full rate or something less) for people earning more than that amount.

The thing I like about this is that it is designed to have an impact on incentives to increase output (i.e., reduces marginal rates) while the reductions in deductions both do not have the opposite impact and in fact are distributively just - i.e., there is no reason why the federal government should give the same benefits to rich and poor people.

It's the same thing with the Romney medicare reform proposal. Rather than just giving everybody care worth, say, 40k (I'm making the number up since I am Canadian and this whole paying for healthcare thing is foreign to me), he gives the poor 40k worth of healthcare but the wealthy get a lesser government subsidy (no idea if it scales to zzero or not, but if we are talking distributive justice it probably should.

What I think is very interesting in all this is that Romney's proposed approach seems very much in line with left-leaning policy objectives but the right doesn't seem to have tweaked to it. Romney is proposing shifting government benefits (whether subsidies or tax breaks) to be contingent on income, such that a benefit for the poor need not also be paid for the rich. That has the incidental benefit of making new benefits more affordable, as they do not need to be paid to everyone equally, across the board.

And like I said, people can disagree on whether they think Romney actually wants to do any of this stuff or whether it is mathematically possible. Just figured someone should lay out what we are actually talking about.
 
mbig said:
I asked for "Significant" you did NOT/Could Not provide it.
You posted one Non-expense and one INsignificant one.
You LOST (badly) again.
Click to expand...

Significant is subjective. You LOSE (badly) again. BUt like I said, I can do this all day. Here's two more

-reduce federal workforce by 10%
-cut federal employee compensation

Ready to admit defeat yet?
 
jonny5 said:
Significant is subjective. You LOSE (badly) again. BUt like I said, I can do this all day. Here's two more

-reduce federal workforce by 10%
-cut federal employee compensation

Ready to admit defeat yet?
Click to expand...

Ah, firing people and cutting their pay. Sounds like what he's good at.

Can't wait to see the excuses when unemployment goes up....
 
johny5 said:
Significant is subjective. You LOSE (badly) again. BUt like I said, I can do this all day. Here's two more
....
Ready to admit defeat yet?
Click to expand...
No, as I already pointed out, $1 Billion outa $7 Trillion is NOT "Significant" and that's NOT "Subjective".
Math is MY friend, your folly.
 
Yet another thread that is absolutely hilarious

Obama has no plan. Obama has offered no plan.

Obama's record over the last 4 years is the worse in American History

Liberals pretend to be concerned about their opponent's plan, wringing their hands, not sure if the math adds up after Obama has added more than 5 trillion of new debt within 4 years

Not passing the laugh test guys. Try harder
 
mbig said:
No, as I already pointed out, $1 Billion outa $7 Trillion is NOT "Significant" and that's NOT "Subjective".
Math is MY friend, your folly.
Click to expand...

Ive only listed a few items, which total at least 100bn. Math is MY friend, your folly. But I can do this all day. Here's two more.

-cap non security discretionary spending at 5% lower than FY2012
-raise social security eligibility age

Give up yet?
 
SheWolf said:
I said earlier that they are the same as candidates in many ways, but I don't remember Obama being vague on his tax plan to the extent of Romney. The experts say Romney is going to add to the deficit, so what's the difference between them. If Romney wins, he is going to be hated as much as Obama, especially if he quickly adds over 5 trillion to the deficit. I don't see him being a great president.
Click to expand...

I would be willing to bet that if he adds another 5 trillion dollars to our debt in 4 years ... he will be another one term president. But if your considering voting for Obama, then you sure aren't worried about anyone adding 5 more trillion to our debt are you ?
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Haven't read through more than a few pages of this thread, so don't know if the original question was seriously addressed (i.e., it's all been snark from the pro-Obama crowd).

So while I'm not sure of all the ins and outs either, my understanding of the framework is as follows:

- 20% across the board cut in tax rates, scaled to the extent required to maintain neutrality

- scaling back (not eliminating) deductions

Not sure there is much mroe to it, unless of course you don't believe him (which is fair, just figured I would get out what he has so inarticulately proposed and people can assess on their own).

Re the first point, he said at the first debate that any tax cut would be deficit neutral and that he would not increase taxes on middle income earners. for both of these to be true, he said that the top rates would not come down all the way if that required either middle class tax hikes or an increase in deficits. Why he hasn't been more explicit about this I have no idea.

Re the second point, "eliminating deductions" has a nice ring to the fiscally conservative purist, but that doesn't seem to be what he is actually proposing. Rather, he seems to be focused on scaling back deductions based on income (in much the same way various other benefits (at least here in Canada) are clawed back with income). So, for example, he would not be eliminating a capital gains tax, but he would be scaling it back to a 0% rate on someone earning 200k and something else (no idea whether it is the full rate or something less) for people earning more than that amount.

The thing I like about this is that it is designed to have an impact on incentives to increase output (i.e., reduces marginal rates) while the reductions in deductions both do not have the opposite impact and in fact are distributively just - i.e., there is no reason why the federal government should give the same benefits to rich and poor people.

It's the same thing with the Romney medicare reform proposal. Rather than just giving everybody care worth, say, 40k (I'm making the number up since I am Canadian and this whole paying for healthcare thing is foreign to me), he gives the poor 40k worth of healthcare but the wealthy get a lesser government subsidy (no idea if it scales to zzero or not, but if we are talking distributive justice it probably should.

What I think is very interesting in all this is that Romney's proposed approach seems very much in line with left-leaning policy objectives but the right doesn't seem to have tweaked to it. Romney is proposing shifting government benefits (whether subsidies or tax breaks) to be contingent on income, such that a benefit for the poor need not also be paid for the rich. That has the incidental benefit of making new benefits more affordable, as they do not need to be paid to everyone equally, across the board.

And like I said, people can disagree on whether they think Romney actually wants to do any of this stuff or whether it is mathematically possible. Just figured someone should lay out what we are actually talking about.
Click to expand...

Thanks for a sensible post... you can get it from the wealthy without taxing them now ... when we don't need any additional limits on what they can do. Taking it from them in the form of benefits as they grow older I and I would hope that many don't have a problem with.

What I find funny about all this, is the way they go about it. Here they want to tear Romney's plan to shreds, yet start a threat about how the Rich benefit from our tax laws ... and you'll hear so much whining and crying it pathetic. Just seems there is no way to win, you have a candidate that wants to changes some of those deductions and they still whine and cry about that .. guess with some there is just nothing you can do to please them ....... You will never be able to convince them that at this point in time raising the tax rates on the wealthy will "only" result in more income for the tax lawyers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom