What Romney should say about his planned tax policy...

[_beastie]

Ryan caused a stir on Fox news when he refused to give any details about the Romney Ryan tax plan by asserting he didn't have enough time to go into it. Later on a talk radio show he explained he was worried that if he went into detail, people would change the channel. Clearly this isn't going to fly. So here's my advice to Romney, when asked in the debates about his tax plan. He should say:

IT'S SACRED, NOT SECRET.

[_beastie]

I don't know how to do a poll and it seems they don't work half the time anyway, so here's a nonpoll poll.

Do you think there's ANY chance Romney will get specific about his tax plan?

I say no way, no how. It's like his tax returns. He's made the calculation that it's better to take the hits on dodging the question than to actually reveal what deductions he's planning on targeting.

[_Jason Bourne]

I thought Romney had given specifics like cut rate across the board by 20% which I heard Ryan repeat to Chris Wallace. I believe he proposes eliminating tax on cap gains and all investment income for income for earners below $200k Also, I have a detail of both Obama's tax proposals and Romney's and have two staff doing a seminar on it in a few weeks. Here is a link that goes into some of this:

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

I think the thing he is vague on is limiting itemized deductions for high income earners and this is what Ryan was vague about.

[_beastie]

I thought Romney had given specifics like cut rate across the board by 20% which I heard Ryan repeat to Chris Wallace. I believe he proposes eliminating tax on cap gains and all investment income for income for earners below $200k Also, I have a detail of both Obama's tax proposals and Romney's and have two staff doing a seminar on it in a few weeks. Here is a link that goes into some of this:

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

I think the thing he is vague on is limiting itemized deductions for high income earners and this is what Ryan was vague about.

Yes, that is what I was referencing. To make his tax cuts revenue neutral, he has to go after the big deductions, like mortgages. No wonder he's keeping mum.

[_Jason Bourne]

Got it. But really I think it is a wise move not to get specific about the deductions. At least politically wise. But really what can he limit? State taxes, real estate taxes, charity and mortgage interest is about all anyone has to deduct. Mortgage interest is the biggy. Charity maybe next.

[_beastie]

Got it. But really I think it is a wise move not to get specific about the deductions. At least politically wise. But really what can he limit? State taxes, real estate taxes, charity and mortgage interest is about all anyone has to deduct. Mortgage interest is the biggy. Charity maybe next.

As I said, it's like his taxes. It's better for him to take the hit on dodging than the hit on which deductions he'd target. These are very popular deductions, and to get any meaningful tax increase, the middle class would have to be targeted as well as the wealthy. I doubt that even republican middle-class voters would be enthusiastic about cutting taxes across the board if their own taxes are going to rise due to the loss of deductions - especially when they realize that a 20% tax reduction for the very wealthy is a heck of a lot more money than their 20% will be.

Even though dodging is his only feasible action, it's going to look bad. Ryan looked bad by dodging it as well. It only makes people suspicious that he really is going to target these popular deductions.

"The angel is in the principle" = "Sacred, not secret".

[_Jason Bourne]

I just don't understand why if someone at a lower income gets a 20% tax reduction why they are upset if someone making more income gets a similar cut but because it results in more $$ they are upset. You can only cut so much $$ from a lower income then there is nothing more to cut. And really this is what the Bush tax cuts did for many lower income people. The tax cuts reduced them right off the tax roles. Bush cut taxes % wise across the board. Sure higher income people got more $$ but not necessarily a larger % cut.

Honestly to dig us out the the massive debt our political leaders have gotten us into rate will have to go up.... on everyone. Not just higher income tax payer. But everyone. Or rate go down but deductions get limited or eliminated. This is what the 1986 tax reform act did. It eliminated many loopholes, deduction, etc. It increased depreciable lives for real estate. It limited tax shelter losses from deductions. It got rid of capital gains rates but then imposed only two rates-15% and 28%. And if I recall revenue went up. Course the economy was booming as well.

In addition spending will have to do down and it will have to start with defense and entitlements because that is where we spend the most.

[_beastie]

I just don't understand why if someone at a lower income gets a 20% tax reduction why they are upset if someone making more income gets a similar cut but because it results in more $$ they are upset. You can only cut so much $$ from a lower income then there is nothing more to cut. And really this is what the Bush tax cuts did for many lower income people. The tax cuts reduced them right off the tax roles. Bush cut taxes % wise across the board. Sure higher income people got more $$ but not necessarily a larger % cut.

Honestly to dig us out the the massive debt our political leaders have gotten us into rate will have to go up.... on everyone. Not just higher income tax payer. But everyone. Or rate go down but deductions get limited or eliminated. This is what the 1986 tax reform act did. It eliminated many loopholes, deduction, etc. It increased depreciable lives for real estate. It limited tax shelter losses from deductions. It got rid of capital gains rates but then imposed only two rates-15% and 28%. And if I recall revenue went up. Course the economy was booming as well.

In addition spending will have to do down and it will have to start with defense and entitlements because that is where we spend the most.

Jason, come on, you can figure this out. When a middle-class person struggles to make ends meet, and gets around a thousand bucks in tax cuts, while simultaneously increasing their taxes by losing their home mortgage deduction, so, in the end, sees either no tax cut or an increase, and then knows that the wealthy, who don't struggle at all to make ends meet, ends up with tens of thousands of extra dollars, it irritates them. Go figure.

And if they know that benefits are also being cut in order to afford this tax cut, it makes it even worse.

[_Jason Bourne]

Beastie come on. Nobody is proposing such a thing for low middle class. Romney proposes 20% cuts and limits on deductions for higher income taxpayers. Bush cut taxes proportionately on everyone yet many cry that it was unfair because higher income earner got a larger dollar amount deduction. But everyone saved and of course lower income save less amounts because they pay less. That was my point.

[_Drifting]

Romney's record on taxation, or 'Shifting Sands' if you prefer...

Taxation
As the new Governor of Massachusetts in 2003, Romney declined to publicly support the federal tax cuts proposed by the Bush Administration.[117] (Romney reportedly told members of the state's congressional delegation that he would not "be a cheerleader" for proposals he did not agree with but that he felt he needed to "keep a solid relationship with the White House."[117]) Romney also said he was open to increases in the federal gasoline tax, to support transportation construction projects.[117] In 2007, after leaving the governor's office and deciding to seek the party' presidential nomination, Romney said that he had supported the Bush tax cuts overall.[122] In that same year, Romney signed the anti-tax pledge put forth by Americans for Tax Reform, pledging no new taxes or increases of existing taxes.[123] (In 2002, he had refused to sign an anti-tax pledge because he considered them "government by gimmickry.")[124]
Romney opposed the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, the compromise tax package between President Obama and the Republicans Congressional leadership that centered around a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts.[125] He said, "because the extension is only temporary, a large portion of the investment and job growth that characteristically accompanies low taxes will be lost. [And] It will also add to the deficit."[125]
During his 2012 presidential campaign, Romney said he would seek income tax law reforms that he says would help lower federal deficits and would stimulate economic growth. Among the series of tax changes he has proposed are: reducing individual income tax rates across the board by 20 percent, maintaining the Bush administration-era tax rate of 15 percent on investment income from dividends and capital gains (and eliminating this tax entirely for those with annual incomes less than $200,000), cutting the top tax rate on corporations from 35 percent to 25 percent, and eliminating the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax.[126][127] He has promised that the loss of government revenue from these tax cuts would be offset by closing loopholes and reining in tax deductions and credits available to taxpayers with the highest incomes, so that his tax plan would not raise federal deficits.[127][128][129] Non-partisan analyses of Romney’s tax plan have estimated that it could add more than $3 trillion to the federal deficit,[130] and would favor the highest-earning Americans,[131] possibly raising annual taxes on middle-class earners by as much as $2,000.[132] Romney and supporters of his tax plan have said that such analyses are unreliable because they have been based on assumptions about specific measures that are not detailed in the plan[133][134] and have not adequately accounted for the positive effects on economic growth that Romney says his plan would generate.[131]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... y#Taxation