Romney misleading about tax plan?

• gut

  BoatShoes;1304825 wrote:Well we're not going to have a 1.2 trillion deficit as the economy improves. In case you haven't noticed it's down 20% from last year. But you're right, because it's not $200 billion it shouldn't be done even though it won't harm the economy to do so :rolleyes:

  LMAO, wishful/ignorant thinking. Obama's long-term plan calls for budgets at 25% of GDP. This is 25% above historical norms of 20% of GDP, and roughly 37% above normative revenues of 18.2% of GDP. In other words, without fundamental tax reform (read: consumption tax/VAT) Obama's sustainable budgets can be expected to create annual deficits in excess of $1T (7% of $16T).
• Manhattan Buckeye

  gut;1304854 wrote:LMAO, wishful/ignorant thinking. Obama's long-term plan calls for budgets at 25% of GDP. This is 25% above historical norms of 20% of GDP, and roughly 37% above normative revenues of 18.2% of GDP. In other words, without fundamental tax reform (read: consumption tax/VAT) Obama's sustainable budgets can be expected to create annual deficits in excess of $1T (7% of $16T).

  You obviously aren't paying attention, the economy improved to a 2% rate by the Commerce department (which will most certainly be revised downward later, like every other estimate in this administration), that is more than enough to improve our tax receipts to, you know, do something about our spending.
  
  The moving of the goalposts in this administration should astound everyone, whether they are liberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat. We are living in strange times.
• gut

  Hahaha, true. Tax policy has pretty much run the gammut, with marginal rates as high as 90% at one point. There just isn't anything in history to suggest sustainable revenues above 18.2% of GDP, and this is relatively intuitive because the wealthy have the ability to defer income almost indefinitely.
  
  So, in fact, the implications are Obama would have to raise rates on the lower and middle class (which might not work, either, since history mostly points to mixing up the winners and losers but having little net impact) or we have a consumption/VAT. The latter would be a tax increase for everyone, even if you limit it to non-necessities (i.e. excluding food, energy and housing).
  
  Or, barring some "radical" solution for Medicare that remains elusive, you have to hike the FICA. Europe is @ 22% - about 50% higher than here in the US. Uhhh, yeah, that will fix the SS/Medicare problem and it's, again, a massive tax increase ON EVERYONE.
  
  A VAT is ultimately the only way I see that can pay for our expanded socialism. And consumption taxes are superior to taxes on produciton (i.e. income). I also think it's pretty fair - everyone should pay the same tax on IPhone regardless of their income (if you can afford an IPhone, you don't deserve some special tax break in buying one).
• believer

  

  gut;1304871 wrote:A VAT is ultimately the only way I see that can pay for our expanded socialism. And consumption taxes are superior to taxes on produciton (i.e. income). I also think it's pretty fair - everyone should pay the same tax on IPhone regardless of their income (if you can afford an IPhone, you don't deserve some special tax break in buying one).

  I agree. A consumption tax is the way to go. Tennessee, for example, has no income tax but they tax consumption (including food, energy, etc.) at 10%.
  
  I like it because I have more take home pay and I can control my rate of taxation by reducing consumption and/or being a smarter consumer.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1304825 wrote:Well we're not going to have a 1.2 trillion deficit as the economy improves. In case you haven't noticed it's down 20% from last year. But you're right, because it's not $200 billion it shouldn't be done even though it won't harm the economy to do so :rolleyes:

  1. Raising taxes AT BEST lowers the deficit by about 8%. That's like applying a band aid to a shot gun wound.
  
  2. So now a liberal is accounting for economic growth in additional revenues but when a conservative like Romney uses it in his tax plan he is called a "bull shitter" by the President (real professional by the way).
  
  3. It is a matter of opinion, not amazing opinion, that raising the taxes on small businesses won't "hurt the economy", chances are good that people will either be not hired or get layed off due to extra costs to small business.
• fish82

  

  BoatShoes;1304825 wrote:Well we're not going to have a 1.2 trillion deficit as the economy improves. In case you haven't noticed it's down 20% from last year. But you're right, because it's not $200 billion it shouldn't be done even though it won't harm the economy to do so :rolleyes:

  $200 billion isn't even "significant" with a deficit this size. The only way you make a significant dent in the deficit with tax increases is to let the tax cuts expire in their entirety. I wonder how the economy would react to that?
  
  Oh, and the $90 billion number assumes there are the same number of taxpayers paying the 39% rate as there were prior to the recession. Guess what? There aren't. You're looking at maybe $50 billion/yr.