6 studies prove Romney tax plan is impossible

Democracy4Sale wrote: Because he's NOT a teabagger, or a Bush or a RMoney or a Ryan.

:thumbsup: Brilliant defense of President Obama. I think the DNC wants to hire you to make their next series of ads. This will convince all the Wal-Mart moms who have to use layaway for Christmas this year because incomes have shrunk and jobs have disappeared since Barack was inagurated.

"Suck it up women, Obama means less money in your pocket book and fewer jobs but now your birth control is paid for.
Vote for Obama! We will subsidize your ACA when you lose your job."

That also happens to be your only defense of RMoney: "He's the 'Not-Obama'"...

Pot/Kettle/Black...

That's why I used it....

pineinthegrass wrote: Yes, Romney's plan lacks details and I'd prefer more details. But is that anything new in politics from either party? We knew very little about what new taxes would be in Obamacare before Obama got elected. Perhaps Romney doesn't want to be too specific so he can't later be accused later of lying about it? Obama got specific about promising those making under $200/250K would not see a penny increase in any taxes, and that got blown out of the water with the middle/lower income tax increases in Obamacare.

Yes it is nothing new, I think if you go back and look the Bush campaign... his pledged tax cuts were not the same detail that passed congress. Different rates and lots of deductions and credits were thrown in the bill. Same with Obamacare, few details in the campaign, just a framework. And the flaky budget math for that has been debunked thoroughly. Congress is going to write the details of any tax reform, and the CBO and Bond markets are going to have a say in the final numbers and any deficit effects. I doubt it ever gets passed in a bi-partisan congress. If you want real reform I think most ALL deductions and credits for everybody need to go, its the only way to lower rates and stay deficit neutral. JMO

LOL, great points. Obamacare passed before the American voter could even advise their representative on what they liked and didn't like. And they want to do an in-depth analysis on legislation that hasn't even been written.

Having served in a very low level elected position, politics is unfortunately about compromise.
You pick issues that are really important to you and you have to give a little ground on issues that aren't.

if Romney is elected I think we can reasonably expect the rich to get richer, corporations to become more powerful, jobs to be created in China and other foreign places, and the average citizen to get screwed. But our conservative friends here will cheer him on and stand with their hands out waiting for the trickle down to start. By 2016 I suspect some will actually recognize they had been duped from the start.

Yes if Romney is elected I think we can reasonably expect the rich to get richer, corporations to become more powerful, jobs to be created in China and other foreign places- but that is where you and I part ways.

I also expect more jobs to be created right here in the USA. I also expect that getting out of the way of businesses will lead to more jobs coming back home- and instead of "the average citizen to get screwed"- I think people will start to find better jobs again.

This will lead to more economic activity here at home under Romney's policies- it will lead to more opportunity for everyone- the rich- the corporations and the poor as well. It will also mean that lower paying jobs will start to pay more- as an increased amount of disposable income means that even the waitress at your local food establishment will walk away at the end of each night with more money in her pocket.

And you know what? The rich getting richer is a good thing- I know that you liberals would prefer to see rich people getting poor- you would rather see corporations go out of business because they can no longer make a profit- you would rather see more jobs being lost.

But a reasonable person knows that what we need is MORE rich people, not less. What we need is more economic activity- not less. What we need is an atmosphere where business- both large and small- can make a go of it again, not a climate where business is failing left and right like we have now.

Our best strategy for helping out the lower income people is to create an environment where everyone can prosper- where everyone has opportunity to move up the ladder- and you don't create wealth by badmouthing those who produce and succeed.

And that's exactly what Obama has been doing for 4 years- badmouthing the producers and generating an environment that is anti-business with taxes and regulations.

Didn't work out so well did it- we have more poor people today as a result.

LOL wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: Yes, Romney's plan lacks details and I'd prefer more details. But is that anything new in politics from either party? We knew very little about what new taxes would be in Obamacare before Obama got elected. Perhaps Romney doesn't want to be too specific so he can't later be accused later of lying about it? Obama got specific about promising those making under $200/250K would not see a penny increase in any taxes, and that got blown out of the water with the middle/lower income tax increases in Obamacare.

Yes it is nothing new, I think if you go back and look the Bush campaign... his pledged tax cuts were not the same detail that passed congress. Different rates and lots of deductions and credits were thrown in the bill. Same with Obamacare, few details in the campaign, just a framework. And the flaky budget math for that has been debunked thoroughly. Congress is going to write the details of any tax reform, and the CBO and Bond markets are going to have a say in the final numbers and any deficit effects. I doubt it ever gets passed in a bi-partisan congress. If you want real reform I think most ALL deductions and credits for everybody need to go, its the only way to lower rates and stay deficit neutral. JMO

I actually like Ryan's response on this. He said the details aren't there yet because we want to work them out with both parties. Here is a framework, an outline of what we'd like to do. You make it work.

Good point TM.

Another little discussed effect is the impact of Federal tax reform on State income taxes. I think most states use taxable income from the Federal return, with deductions factored in. So any reform will require changes to state income tax forms/ calculations?

No politician is a dictator in this country (or anyway they are not supposed to be).

A leader can propose a framework for new policy- but the congress needs to work out the details. Romney and Ryan would be foolish to come out with all the details of a tax plan - or any policy change.

There's 2 reasons for this- first the left would cherry pick every detail they don't like- and formulate propaganda against it to support their agenda- and second it's very unlikely that after all the details are worked out in congress- that it would look exactly like it was planned at the top.

It's the democratic process- I just wish Ryan was more articulate when he explained this when pressured in the debate. I suspect they know this now- and will be ready the next time the question comes up.

It should be a bipartisan agreement. Rumney has said several times that he would work with both sides of the aisle.