DiscussMormonism.com

In the debate, Romney insisted that his tax plan actually would NOT result in the wealthy paying less taxes than they currently do, but will result in the middle class paying less taxes than they currently do.

If that's true, why play footsies with deductions and loopholes? Why not just lower the rates on the middle class and let the rates remain the same on the wealthy?

Second question. Why did Romney deny that his plan entails a 5 trillion dollar tax cut? I can understand him arguing that it is really revenue neutral, but to deny it even exists seems odd to me. Or did I mishear him?

beastie wrote:Second question. Why did Romney deny that his plan entails a 5 trillion dollar tax cut? I can understand him arguing that it is really revenue neutral, but to deny it even exists seems odd to me. Or did I mishear him?

5 trillion over how many years? 5 trillion is the entire federal budget for at least a couple years.

beastie wrote:Second question. Why did Romney deny that his plan entails a 5 trillion dollar tax cut? I can understand him arguing that it is really revenue neutral, but to deny it even exists seems odd to me. Or did I mishear him?

He said he would not approve a tax cut that added to the deficit.

Jason Bourne wrote:

beastie wrote:Second question. Why did Romney deny that his plan entails a 5 trillion dollar tax cut? I can understand him arguing that it is really revenue neutral, but to deny it even exists seems odd to me. Or did I mishear him?

5 trillion over how many years? 5 trillion is the entire federal budget for at least a couple years.

I think the 5 trillion (or 4.8 or 4.9 or whatever the more accurate number is) is based on ten years, so 500ish billion per year in revenue lost.

All tax cuts add to the deficit jason. Come on.

Kevin Graham wrote:All tax cuts add to the deficit jason. Come on.

not if deductions are decreased as well, that would offset.
Besides, why is reducing revenue so bad?
A reduction in revenue would require the government to re-evaluate itself and its priorities....unless...you are claiming that the federal government needs to spend more money...or that currently it has "just the right amount"?

subgenius wrote:Besides, why is reducing revenue so bad?
A reduction in revenue would require the government to re-evaluate itself and its priorities....

Would you therefore advocate members reducing their tithing donations as a way of encouraging the Church to 're-evaluate'?

If Romney's economic plan involves changing deductions and "loopholes", it's really weak of him to not be clear about which ones he is talking about.

beastie wrote:In the debate, Romney insisted that his tax plan actually would NOT result in the wealthy paying less taxes than they currently do, but will result in the middle class paying less taxes than they currently do.

If that's true, why play footsies with deductions and loopholes? Why not just lower the rates on the middle class and let the rates remain the same on the wealthy?

My good-faith understanding of his point has to do with motivation. For example, imagine the current situation where a businessman currently makes $200,000 a year and pays, say $30,000, a year in federal income tax. In Romney's world, the same guy would still be making $200,000 and would still be paying $30,000. So what's the difference? In the current world (as Romney imagines it), this guy is thinking to himself, "I could expand my operations and make an additional $100,000 a year, but I'd have to pay an additional $35,000 in income tax, so why bother?" In contrast, in Romney's world, the guy would be thinking, "I'm going to expand my operations and create lots of high-paying, middle-class jobs! I'm going to do this because I'll increase my income by $100,000, and will have to only pay an additional $25,000 in taxes!"

Voodoo economics at its finest.