Romney's tax cap is a brilliant idea
President Obama attacked Romney’s tax cap idea as not having specifics. President Obama is right, which is exactly why Romney’s idea could work.
It is precisely the lack of specifics that makes Romney's idea so powerful. As Obama knows, the most formidable barrier to tax reforms are the efforts of organized interest groups who identify and defend their own pieces of the system. Much of the corruption of our political system flows from organized interests exploiting specific details of the tax code and drawing power from ambiguities.
When President Obama cries for specifics, he is cynically and mendaciously exploiting this situation and hoping to enlist the nefarious power of organized & entrenched special interests. He wants to bind Romney with the Gordian knot that no politician has been able to unravel since the tax code was invented.
Romney's bold proposal doesn't even try to unravel this mess so long in the making. instead, he slices cleanly through the ancient knot. In one stroke, Romney levels the playing field for ordinary people. No special interest can identify its particular interests, since all are affected equally. They cannot deploy their powers of persuasion or corruption in the precise and largely secret way they usually do. The Romney proposal disarms special interests by putting them all in the same boat with the rest of us.
What about the rich and the poor? Romney has that covered. Most of the poor do not itemize their deductions. They would be totally unaffected by the cap and would benefit by having their tax rates cut. Romney mentions a cap of $25,000. Even with incomes of $75,000-100,000, most people would be under the cap, since the average deduction in that group is $22,000.
So who pays more under the Romney cap? The rich pay more under the Romney plan. People who make $10m + have average deductions of $4.3m. If Romney lets them deduct only $25,000, that puts $4,275,000 more in taxable income. So Romney is proposing that rich people like himself, Obama and Biden pay more in taxes on average. And the system is much simpler for all of us, which saves each of us hours of work, significantly reduces the need for record keeping and creates wealth.
So the irony is that Romney's plan is better for the poor (lowers their taxes), better for the rich (reduces complexity) and better for America. Of course, Obama's simple slogans are better for Obama. So our choice is should we choose what is good for most Americans or should we go with what is better for special interests ... and Obama?
I choose American and Romney, but you all can come to your own conclusions.
Posted by Christine & John at October 20, 2012 10:52 AM
I will eat my hat if that plan actually ever becomes law under Republican/conservative administrations.
Just as in all the campaign, Romney is lying… saying anything to improve his numbers and just get into office.
Now, I understand many of you on the right (all of you) will say this is hyperbole… well, maybe that is too big a word… you will just say this is liberal lies and hypocrisy and then pronounce anyone who would make this statement an enemy of freedom. But you and I both know that what I say is true.
What sort of hat do you own?
Re “well, maybe that is too big a word” - why do you insist on such a stupid attack. I scored in the 99th percentile on these things on my GREs and GMATs. Did you even take these tests? If so, could you have scored better?
I have lots of problems and failings. A weak vocabulary is not among them. In fact, I dumb it down for you guys.
Perhaps LibRick learned a new word doing the crossword puzzles C&J.
Funny but true story. When I was eighteen and could legally drink beer in Wisconsin I was in a bar with some friends. I don’t know why I used the word “prerogative”, but I did and what a laugh from my buddies. I don’t think they knew the meaning of the word, and perhaps that is what made them laugh rather than be embarrassed.
Since then I too “dumb” it down when I consider my audience.
Are you guys really that vainglorious that you feel the need to dumb down your replies for others? Give me a break.
Romney has already promised that the share of the rich’s tax burden will not go up. How do the rich pay both more and the same taxes at the same time?
As far as this argument of yours goes? It’s an insult to my intelligence, and the intelligence of everybody here, and here’s why: The fundamental reason why Romney has to promise that this will be fiscally neutral is that we’re already running trillion dollar deficits.
This, by the way, is also one of your big complaints about Obama, and it’s tied to another complaint against the President: that he has expanded the debt.
If the numbers don’t add up, if growth and cutting deductions doesn’t seal things up, then Romney’s fiscal policy makes the situation worse, and will cause even more debt to be accrued during the next presidential term than if we simply left Obama and his plan in charge.
So, Romney’s lack of detail is a good reason to dismiss his proposal, because the consequences of him being wrong is that he makes the problem worse. And I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that when directly asked during the debate what would happen, what would Romney do if the tax cuts didn’t function like they were supposed to, or didn’t add up, Romney instead defensively said he’d always gotten the numbers right before in his other jobs.
In other words, trust me!
In just a few, let me sum up my attitude to that: I don’t. I don’t trust that Romney has the numbers to achieve anything close to breaking even, much less reducing the deficit.
It depends. I have found that most people I talk to have much less experience with actually running operations. We need to explain more. I also find that there is significant innumeracy in our audience. I don’t know how many times I have had to explain simple things like the difference between the mean and the median. You will find lots of people who tell me the median income has risen only because the top 20% of earners make more. If you don’t know why this statement is wrong, I can explain.
Generally speaking, I try to use Anglo-Saxon origin words rather than French source. This is not to dumb down, but to make it simpler and better. For example, we should chose to say shit instead of defecate and house instead of domicile.
My specific problem was with LibRick’s silly statement. He implies that he is better than we are w/o any evidence to support and lots to disprove.
What are the specifics of Obama’s policies? He says he want to tax the rich, but there is not enough money there. So he means to tax others. Does he supply details?
jack….it just tickles the shit out of you to be able to flaunt your arrogance! There are posters on here who could possible run circles around you, but don’t feel the need to “one-up” anyone just to get their shits and giggles for the day. Get a grip !!
I was responding to a particular post.
Of course I always appreciate your erudite responses. Glad you took my advice about Anglo-Saxon words.
“shits and giggles” is a very quaint phrase, for example.
I suppose there are readers here who could run circles around me. I suppose I should be grateful that none of them actually take the time to post comments.
Obama’s claim that a moderate tax increase on the rich will improve the fiscal situation is more believeable on its merits. The 1993 fiscal reforms argue for Obama’s claims, given their results. Romney’s claim that a tax cut won’t put us deeper in the hole has every tax cut for the last 30+ years arguing against it. His claim that he can make it up by deductions has the 1986 tax cuts arguing against it. None of the tax cuts really increased growth, and none of them put us in a better fiscal position.
You argue the worst kind of double talk, which presupposes that because we won’t see the actual bill, the bad old special interests won’t have as much input. Bull. They know where to find Romney.
The Real reason to keep it from us is that it once again gives billions in windfalls to the rich, and Romney wants the positive glow of being Santa, without people noticing the coal of an increased deficit or increased taxes in their stocking.
He’s not being straight with us, and this is his idea he’s protecting, not ours.
If you take ALL the money from the richest 1%, it doesn’t cover it. If you raise the taxes on the rich as much as Obama wants, it pays for 8 days of Obama spending.
Romney wants to cut tax RATES, not the taxes paid by the wealthy.
The Obama plan, simply to raise taxes, is just not good enough. We have to be smarter than Obama. We want a tax system that actually raises revenue well and not one that just makes poor people feel good because they think they are punishing the more successful.
Re the bad old special interests - they thrive in the complexity of the tax code. A simple tax code gives them fewer places to hide or wait in ambush.
Romney’s tax reform lacks details, but he has the right idea. It is better than the Obama tax plan, which is no reform at all and just wants to raise taxes.
So, Romney is proposing a tax rate cut for everybody, eliminating capital gains taxes and capping deductions at $25,000. This is supposed to be revenue neutral. The higher income groups will have an effective tax increase with middle and lower income groups enjoying a tax cut.
Great! However, one of the rather bizarre consequences of this proposal is that it is the higher middle income group will be the one most impacted due to the limitations on deductions. The highest income groups, deriving a substantial portion of their income from passive income (capital gains, dividends, interest) will be hardly impacted.
If there is one income group in this country that has a legitimate claim on some equity in tax policies, it is the upper middle income group. If there is one income group that contains the core of the small business entrepreneurs, professionals and dual earner families, it is that group. Ironically, it is this group that conservatives claim to champion.
First of all, your insinuation that the GOP would allow a $25K cap on deductions is a pipe dream and you are either blind, ignorant, or both to believe that it would be legislated by the GOP without some major allowances to that class of taxpayer which would render such an act ineffective.
Romney has changed his tune on almost every policy point over the last year and has swung his position wildly when you include the last ten or fifteen years. You may argue for his position taken in the debates, but anyone who has been paying attention knows he has no credibility when he changes so rapidly to move in the polls. It wasn’t that long ago that the right was calling Kerry a flip-flopper, Gore a hypocritical liar, and Clinton “Slick Willie”. Now when your boy does what you have been so very critical of in the past, you want to say he serious and not in that category. Hypocrites all, in the right wing talking points world. The guilty dog barks loudest.
Secondly, I was not targeting you specifically regarding the jab at vocabulary. Rather, I was making a dig at the lowbrow insults that those of us on the left endure daily. Arguing policy is one thing. Labeling people who might vote for a Democratic candidate as radical leftists and painting us as idiots is another. If you don’t see what your brethren on the right do on this blog ALL THE TIME, then go ahead and wear your feelings on your sleeve and whine a bit. It is my perception that those on the can dish out insults but rarely can they take it. School yard bullies. I have been advocating punching the bullies on the right smack in the nose. Dirty trickster Rove, Hypocrite Hannity, Lying Limbaugh, Sleazy Dick Morris, Blustering Bill O’Reilly, Malicious Malkin the Hydra, and the Harpie Coulter, All the Fake NoNothings at Faux Knews… Punch Them In The Nose. NOTE: This may or may not include you specifically. I am making a point to all who read this blog, not just you.
Finally, I’m happy that you are educated. I have, in fact, I too have taken both of those tests… and passed. I just assumed that some on your side may not understand those words. They seem to skip right over actual discourse and debate and go straight to insults and an attempt to diminish points on the left by demeaning them personally and thereby discounting anything factual points that are brought up.
Now, I am engaging in the same. Perhaps this is something those who live to post their venomous blathering will understand what I am saying.
A further comment on the Romney tax plan. It doesn’t do a thing about the deficit. The idea that it would increase the taxpayer base and bring in more taxpayers and revenue is nonsense. There are no “loopholes” to close that would broaden the base in any significant way. That is the simple reason that Romney refuses to disclose those “loopholes.” The only way to achieve his plan is through a massive elimination or restriction on common deductions used by a majority of middle and upper income taxpayers, i.e., mortgage interest, state and local taxes, charitable contributions, etc.
Dang… where is the edit button when you need it? My wife interrupted my post several times and there are numerous grammatical errors. Deal with it, I suppose.
HAVE A NICE DAY! :-)
Your Liberal-Socialist-Communist-America-hating-Pinko-Atheist Friend,
The small business group would still be able to deduct the costs that go into goods sold and legitimate business expenses, as would all businesses. We are talking re the personal deductions.
People like you and me that give a lot to charity will see our taxes rise. I don’t like to pay more any more than you do, but somebody has to pay and we can.
“I was not targeting you specifically regarding the jab at vocabulary.” - If you were not aiming at me, I am sorry to take offense. However, you wrote under my post where nobody else had commented and where I made no specific mention democrats or liberals. To steal the line from Taxi Driver, ” You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to me? Then who the hell else are you talking… you talking to me? Well I’m the only one here.”
Re “Your Liberal-Socialist-Communist-America-hating-Pinko-Atheist Friend” - I don’t assume those things about you. I used to be liberal and a patriot, so I assume you are too. Of course, with much thought and experience, I recovered from liberalism. You can too.
C&J, Stephen Daugherty is claiming there are no specifics being brought forward by the Romney campaign yet he cites many specifics as to why it won’t work.
What’s up with that?
Romney said something similar to Obama, that for a unknown plan, Obama sure knew a lot about it.
Weary Willie, C&J-
Don’t BS me here. First, I didn’t offer specifics, I just said that plans that resemble Romney’s general outlines have failed. Growth didn’t skyrocket, the losses in revenue were not recouped, and altering deductions to avoid the revenue problem fell short.
Romney himself has offered some of the structural details of his plan, and some of the targets bring with them details of their own.
But what we don’t get are the targets of the policy. We don’t get what deductions will be removed, or even a real number on what a cap might be, or how it might be implemented.
Without such details, there’s no way to prove Romney’s policy wrong or right on the merits. That, I believe, is completely deliberate. He wants to appeal to people’s emotions, to their greed, not put himself in a position where his policy could be nailed down as wrong, or undesirable on the facts.
That’s Romney’s schtick: deprive you of the information you need to make a reasoned decision, so he can push you with his emotional BS.
I think that’s why Obama’s sketchy deal comment in the debates is so on the mark. Romney wants us to make a major decision on fiscal matters, having deliberately withheld all the facts. C&J want us to believe that this reduces corruption by denying folks the targets for their lobbying, but that’s BS. They’d have to legislate it, and besides, the rich and the corporations out there can afford lobbyists to hash out those details before Romney signs them into law.
All this does now is keep folks from having solid reviews of the proposal. Everybody has to go, “Romney’s not provided us with enough information to judge whether this policy would work or not.”
It’s deceptive, and should be a political negative for him. He is asking us to risk blowing up the deficit so people like him can see their rates go down again. He does not have the specifics to undo the general direction of his tax policy.
It’s not a ‘plan’. It never was a plan. It’s more like a goal. The vague idea being put forth as a ‘plan’ is to cut taxes across the board 20%, and then… “Pick a number”… sometimes $17,000 and other times $25,000…
Hey! I pick $4.3 million in deductions!
So, “pick a number’ and make that a total deduction, and do away with other deductions that are used to guide money towards places that help the American economy. And in case anyone one is wondering, the standard deduction, charitable contributions, mortgage write-off, and deduction for state and local taxes are NOT where the 1% get away with not paying their fair share, although the deductions mentioned comprise the VAST majority of all tax deductions.
And it begs the obvious question: if an across-the-board cut of 20% with a “pick a number” amount of deductions works, why not simply do away with any deduction, and make an across-the-board cut of some other totally made-up number- say, 25%?
It’s ludicrous. It depends on a level of gullibility among the American people that will only work with conservatives.
If you know enough to compare Romney’s plan to others, you know more about Romney’s plan than we know about Obama’s.
We have had four years of Obama. We should know exactly what he plans for the next four years. Do you? Is it more of the same or something new? I suppose it will be harder to blame the guy who had the job for the last four years.
So Obama has a sketchy deal too. But he has no excuse for his unclear ideas.
Romney has not committed to the 20% either. He is flexible and will change his mind when conditions change. What would you do?
That list is not that bad considering Eric Canter is on record as saying all legistation brought forth by Obama will be stoped to prevent him any legistative wins. When put into perspective it is nowhere near as damning as first expected.
How many posts and pushes have you done to try to hold the Republican Rep’s and Senitors accountable for not working for the good of all Americans not just the special interests.
“That’s Romney’s schtick: deprive you of the information you need to make a reasoned decision, so he can push you with his emotional BS.”
Hmmm, I believe the writer is referring to obamacare.
Obama has done an exceptional job of fulfilling his goals. I’m impressed. It’s even better than I thought. Thanks for the link! It’s true, he did not close Guantanamo, and the GOP prevented him from accomplishing a few others, but in general-
Obama has indeed done some good things. But if you look at what he promised and what he did, he knocked off the easy ones or the ones that (like Iraq) that were already in progress.
The hard one, not a specific promise but key to all others, is getting the economy better. He did poorly there.
Wait a minute. You voted twice for Bush, resulting in turning a budget surplus into deficits, tax cuts that turned a projected $10 trillion surplus into $10 trillion in debt, Iraq, and an economic crash…
And Obama did “poorly”?
And now the current Republican nominee offers a similar agenda to Bush, with vague talk of tax cuts/reductions, a philosophy of letting Detroit go bankrupt a la Lehman Brothers and letting the housing market “hit bottom,” stands on social issues that are so noxious they change almost daily, and a foreign policy team consisting of the SAME Neocons that brought us Iraq…
And that would be a good idea?
Are you kidding?
If Obama were running against Bush, this is an argument you might make. As it is, the election is between Barack Obama, whose record we have in the presidency and Romney who was not part of the any former presidential administration.
In any case, the situation today is different than it was in 2008, different than in 2001, 2003 etc.
We know that Obama has not done well in the last four years. We know that the deficit today is higher. We know that Romney is proposing an alternative. We can judge the Obama record and compare this to what we want.
Re the housing hitting bottom. It looks like it has, no thanks to Obama. You really do need to let these things work. Obama wanted to prop up prices. He didn’t succeed in making housing more expensive.
Why is it more important to argue these long range, broad based positions when we are ignoring our local positions?
Think local. Should we be expected to provide for the rest of the country, or should we provide for ourselves and our own, local community first?
(He himself had taken great care of his own parents at Whitchurch Hill, until they both died,)Amazingly he has produced good discount north face jackets for women hot sale using his left hand some fine drawings for a housing project, which he hopes may still come to fruition, It took him at least six times longer than it should have. (He himself had taken great care of his own parents at Whitchurch Hill, until they both died,)Amazingly he has produced using his left hand some fine drawings for the best quality with the north face outlet locations good for use a housing project, which he hopes may still come to fruition, It took him at least six times longer than it should have.
What, then, are the characteristics that make an MSA likely to spawn successful neologisms? It’s well established that Coach Outlet Twitter has a higher rate of adoption among African Americans than other ethnic groups, and so it perhaps isn’t Coach Outlet surprising that they now find that innovation centres, as well as being highly populated, have a higher proportion of Coach Outlet African Americans, and that similarity of racial demographic can make two urban centres more likely to be linked Coach Outlet in the influence network. There is a long history of adoption of African American slang (cool, dig, rip off) in mainstream Coach Outlet Online US culture, so these findings agree with what we might expect.Not only has he been sacked, but he now risks losing his Coach Factory Online home as well, situated almost next door to his former workplace, the Papal apartments on the top floor of the Coach Outlet Online Apostolic Palace.The Gendarmerie explained that this was done to prevent Gabriele from harming himself, Coach Outlet and that he himself had asked for the light to be left on at night and was given a sleeping mask.
Botkier may be one of those in the list as they always come up with products that are one of a kind. This oversized cheap designer handbags Chrystie Zip hobo is one of the proofs of it. Weighing in for $695, it is made of shimmering Italian leather with snake-stamped lambskin diagonal detail, and bronze hardware and studs accentuating the whole piece. It also features double diagonal zip closures with each having cheap gucci handbags its compartments. The two interiors are lined with logo lining, which also include one inside zip, a cell phone pocket, a multi-functional pocket with keychain, and an interior logo plate on the leather platform. Measuring around 16 this Botkier hobo bag is spacious enough for an everyday casual use, with style and sophistication at hand. Aside from bronze, the bag is also available in smoke and black/black snake. Although the snake detail Chanel Bags online store is not much visible, it still adds to the glamour and style of the bag.
With regards to bag, Burberry Buckleigh Nylon Tote is crafted from a material that is perhaps the easiest to maintain. No matter Emporio Armani Watches where you go in vacation, it is must be that bag for its versatility compared to leather and suede. With a price of $195 for a Burberry bag, you definitely want to buy this. It is actually made of nylon which is also the reason for its cheap price. Well, cheap or not, at least you armani watches for men sale have a Burberry bag to take with you anywhere you go. You may choose to have the black version for a little of classiness, or perhaps the red one for a trendier look. Whichever you prefer, both bags have black leather trims and as well as silver tone hardware for contrast. It has drawstring pockets on each side which then adds to Cheap Chanel Bags for sale its overall design. The equestrian knight logo is placed on the front for subtle branding and to keep its minimalist design. It has top handles with ring attachments and is sized at about inches, which is already enough for your fashionable beach essentials and whatnots. Since this is a versatile Burberry bag, you could pair it with summer dresses or beach attire for a relaxed look while at the beach, or perhaps with jeans and smart casual attire while downtown.
“337 Yiwu pens investigation” launched three times in four months, the U.S. International Trade Commission, a move which is quite crazy, and electronic equipment companies seems to have become the biggest “victim”. The experts pointed out that this lack of legal means of the nature of the Communications market Yiwu reasonableness of unilateral sanctions is the product of the enterprise market, the Chinese electronic device Legion in growing overseas markets for U.S. enterprises have fear. Four months launched Yiwu China Muslim population three investigations Yesterday, the U.S. International Trade Commission initiated production of many wireless electronic devices “337 investigation” to determine whether there is patent infringement. This is also the third survey initiated in the past four Иу months. The U.S. International Trade Commission said in a statement that the product involved is a wireless-enabled consumer electronic devices and components, such as tablet computers, smart phones, e-books, wireless routers and handheld one dollar store game consoles. The survey involved a total of 13 companies, including Samsung (microblogging).
accused Yiwu Apparel the United States imports and the company’s patent infringement in the U.S. market, sales of the products involved, the requirements to start the “337 investigation”, and released exclusion order and a ban on the import order. 45 May of this year, the U.S. International Trade Commission launched the “337 Shampoo Yiwu investigation” to determine the existence of patent infringement of these companies in the production of electronic devices with a retractable USB connector. In Wal-Mart in China Yiwu June, the U.S. International Trade Commission has launched the “337 investigation”. Electronic imaging equipment on the production of a number of enterprises in Chinese Mainland and Taiwan The so-called “337 investigation” the earliest named after section 337 of the U.S. yiwu agent Tariff Act of 1930 “. Under the terms, the U.S. International Trade Commission the power to china wholesalers investigate complaints of related patents and registered trademark infringement.
I could see the deduction-cap being a compromise - at least in name - allowing House Republicans a sort of fig leaf against the chargr that they went along with a tax increase.http://www.essaywritingservices.com/essay.php
Dressesstore.net has been in business for more than 10 years, we are a professional US wedding dress and uk wedding dresses manufacturer, and our goal is to provide complete one-stop shopping for all brides, bridesmaids and all special occasion events. We strive to provide you with the most current selection in Mldress, the most complete size range, the best prices and the largest variety of styles. Each style was built around the concept of offering a complete dressok, suitable product assortment for your social moment. Each style includes the product and information necessary to help you create a memorable wedding ceremony or party.you can buy cheap handbags in our store