UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (29) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: bufftrainer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1972314  
Subject: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 12:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Gingrich acknowledged the clear inconsistency, saying “I think it’s clear he changed.” He described the change as “good politics.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/07/972301/gingrich...
Print the post Back To Top
Author: HMALETTER Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822022 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 1:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Did Romney ever say he would cut taxes for job creators?

Did Romney ever say he would eliminate deductions, loopholes and credits after reducing tax Rates?

Did Romney ever say he would not pass a tax plan that would raise the deficit?

I know full well what he said last week. What did he say before?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: kenm47 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822033 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 2:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Did Romney ever say he would cut taxes for job creators?"

What does 20% cuts across the board mean?

"Now we know that Gov. Romney’s tax plan does not call for a $5 trillion tax cut. Which means that we now officially know nothing at all about Mitt Romney’s tax plan.

Previously, Governor Romney has said that his tax plan would cut all individual income tax rates by 20%, eliminate the AMT, eliminate the estate tax, and eliminate taxes on investment income for low- and middle-income taxpayers. He would also extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts that are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/10/04/about-m...

"Romney’s proposed tax changes would work like this: He would cut income tax rates by 20% across the tax brackets and eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends for those earning less than $200,000; but to avoid lost revenue – keeping the plan "revenue neutral" – he calls for closing tax loopholes and deductions enjoyed by upper-income households.
***
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, has said the Romney proposal would cost $360 billion in the first year before it is offset by closing loopholes, which others have extrapolated to estimate that it would amount to $5 trillion over the decade."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-fact-check-debate...

Ken

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822035 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 2:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>"Did Romney ever say he would cut taxes for job creators?"

>>What does 20% cuts across the board mean?


It means to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/TaxPoli...

While the entire tax code is in dire need of a fundamental overhaul, Mitt Romney believes in holding the line against increases in marginal tax rates. The goals that President Bush pursued in bringing rates down to their current level— to spur economic growth, encourage savings and investment, and help struggling Americans make ends meet—are just as important today as they were a decade ago. Letting them lapse, as President Obama promises to do in 2012, is a step in precisely the wrong direction. If anything, the lower rates established by President Bush should be regarded as a directional marker on the road to more fundamental reform.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: kenm47 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822036 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 2:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"It means to make the Bush tax cuts permanent."

Nope. It means more than that per the sources I cited.

Ken

Print the post Back To Top
Author: kenm47 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822038 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 2:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
PS:

"He [Romney] suggested the changes could be part of a plan that includes a 20 percent cut in tax rates across the board, continuation of upper income tax cuts that Obama wants to end and a comprehensive tax overhaul plan that the Republican presidential contender has so far declined to flesh out in detail. Romney says his overall plans would invigorate the slowly recovering U.S. economy."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-foreign-policy-c...

Ken

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolsey1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822039 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 2:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"It means to make the Bush tax cuts permanent."

Nope. It means more than that per the sources I cited.

Ken



Exactly.

Romney's website says the 20% cut of tax rates is from the current levels.

Romney says his plan will pay for the 20% cut, but shouldn't he as a conservative want to go back and get the last tax cut paid for?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822040 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 2:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
From my source we have this:

TAX POLICY
INDIVIDUAL TAXES
• Maintain marginal rates at current levels
• Further reduce taxes on savings and investment
• Eliminate the death tax
• Long-term goal: pursue a flatter, fairer, simpler structure

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolsey1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822044 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 3:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
TAX POLICY
INDIVIDUAL TAXES
• Maintain marginal rates at current levels
• Further reduce taxes on savings and investment
• Eliminate the death tax
• Long-term goal: pursue a flatter, fairer, simpler structure



From this page: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax
"Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates"


From this page (page 3): http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/TaxPoli...
Prevent the expiration of low marginal rates enacted by Bush.


From this page: http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm
"Current Rate 35%, New Rate 28% ... Tax Policy Center obtained additional information about details of the plan from campaign advisors"

35% is the 'Bush tax cut' rate, then minus 20% equals 28%.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822045 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 3:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I am confused and maybe I should not be using Romney's Tax Policy detailed plan as a guide: http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/TaxPoli...

I assumed that by stating "Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates" it was referencing the Bush tax cuts.

If not, it doesn't really make sense.

Step 1: Make permanent marginal rate cuts.

Step 2: Change those permanent rates that I just made permanent in step 1 to take another 20%.

I admit it could be that I lack cognitive skills, but the only way I see it is that the 20% cuts= Bush tax cuts.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolsey1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822047 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 3:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Step 1: Make permanent marginal rate cuts.

Step 2: Change those permanent rates that I just made permanent in step 1 to take another 20%.

I admit it could be that I lack cognitive skills, but the only way I see it is that the 20% cuts= Bush tax cuts.



Initially I read it that way, as well.

Then when several media outlets, including Tax Policy Center that documents speaking with Romney's campaign on tax issues, reported the 20% cut from the 35% rate rather than the 39.6% rate and Romney's campaign hasn't stepped forward to say otherwise, I re-read his tax plan to mean,

"Make permanent across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates." (take out the comma).


Also, going from 39.6 down to 35 is only 11%, not 20%, so that's further evidence he intends for the 20% cut to be from current levels rather than post-expiration levels.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822048 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 3:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Initially I read it that way, as well.

Then when several media outlets, including Tax Policy Center that documents speaking with Romney's campaign on tax issues, reported the 20% cut from the 35% rate rather than the 39.6% rate and Romney's campaign hasn't stepped forward to say otherwise, I re-read his tax plan to mean,

"Make permanent across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates." (take out the comma).


Also, going from 39.6 down to 35 is only 11%, not 20%, so that's further evidence he intends for the 20% cut to be from current levels rather than post-expiration levels.


You're picking nits. Actually, when one piles up the nits picked by the media and others over Romney's plans, you could knit a scarf that spans from Chicago to Mexico City.

And this all the while simultaneously talking about decimal tenths in Romney's plan and claiming he's not specific enough.

Can we please adopt one narrative and stick with it?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: notehound Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822053 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 4:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Now we know that Gov. Romney’s tax plan does not call for a $5 trillion tax cut. Which means that we now officially know nothing at all about Mitt Romney’s tax plan....

Does anyone really think that either presidential candidate can do anything about taxes or spending without working something out with that herd of cats in Congress? Does anyone really think that taxes or spending policy even matter so long as the Fed has promised to keep interest rates at Zero and to buy as much of our debt as is necessary to keep interest on our debt at Zero?

The only reason we had balanced budgets under Clinton was the "bond vigilantes" who drove up rates and increased debt service costs - scaring the you-know-what out of Clinton and Congress. But bond vigilantes are powerless against a Fed that is willing to bid up the price of debt with conjured digital currency.

Neither Romney, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Boehner or McConnell or any of their cohorts or adversaries can or will fashion anything close to a rational fiscal policy for this nation until Ben Bernanke increases interest rates and stops buying up all the US debt.

If someone wants to ask when the US will get back to a balanced budget, ask Ben Bernanke.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822054 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 4:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
" Does anyone really think that taxes or spending policy even matter so long as the Fed has promised to keep interest rates at Zero and to buy as much of our debt as is necessary to keep interest on our debt at Zero?"

Of course. Why would you think differently?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolsey1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822056 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 4:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
You're picking nits.

Ok.

Deficits don't matter.

The numbers are distracting.

Ignore your marginal rates.


Got it.


And this all the while simultaneously talking about decimal tenths in Romney's plan and claiming he's not specific enough.

Romney will raise your taxes. Does that get your attention?


Can we please adopt one narrative and stick with it?

How about the narrative of, numbers matter when it's a Dem, but don't matter if Repub? Is that fair?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822057 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 4:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"Romney will raise your taxes. Does that get your attention?"

If dope1 is one of the 47% that doesn't pay taxes then you are correct, but I don't believe he is, so he Romney won't raise his taxes.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: notehound Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822058 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 4:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why would you think differently?

The Fed has enabled Congress to avoid confronting the fiscal mess for 12 years and has promised to do so for the indefinite future. With an unlimited credit card and Zero interest, why even bother?

Politicians don't raise taxes on their supporters or campaign financiers. Politicians don't cut spending on programs that benefit their supporters or campaign financiers. Regardless of their party.

Unless a crisis forces them to do so.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: eatenbybears Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822059 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 4:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, has said the Romney proposal would cost $360 billion in the first year before it is offset by closing loopholes, which others have extrapolated to estimate that it would amount to $5 trillion over the decade."


Doesn't that mean that cost first year $360 billion

Close loopholes into 2nd year

Savings over next 10 years from closing loopholes $5 trillion

Works for me, and protects my meager retirement income from higher capital gains taxes. (should be zero if income under $75,000)

Bears

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822060 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 4:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"The Fed has enabled Congress to avoid confronting the fiscal mess for 12 years and has promised to do so for the indefinite future. With an unlimited credit card and Zero interest, why even bother?"

Because, the Fed does NOT have the ammo to keep rates low for the long term. The ONLY reason rates are low right now is because America is still considered the save haven for dollars.

Once the economy picks up and it will despite Obama or whoever is president, the Fed will have to raise interest rates to fight inflation. Once inflation kicks in the place to be for dollars is the stock market. This too will drive the interest rates up, because dollars will move away from bonds. And this will drive the sovereign debt crisis. It's a no win situation and the Fed is lying by not being honest about the dire straits America is in.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822061 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 4:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Politicians don't raise taxes on their supporters or campaign financiers. Politicians don't cut spending on programs that benefit their supporters or campaign financiers. Regardless of their party."

Yep, and that is why we are doomed regardless of who is president. Both Obama and Romney don't have the political courage and strength to make the tough choices and lead this country to fiscal sanity.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: eatenbybears Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822062 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 4:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The Fed has enabled Congress to avoid confronting the fiscal mess for 12 years and has promised to do so for the indefinite future.

Even at these low rates, the national debt yearly interest will still be near $1/2 trillion and rise every year.

No matter what the fed does, the fiscal mess will keep growing at a near astronomical rate.

Nothing big enough to cut or that can be cut without wrecking the economy even more.

Bears

Print the post Back To Top
Author: HMALETTER Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822069 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 5:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I assumed that by stating "Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates" it was referencing the Bush tax cuts.

If not, it doesn't really make sense.

Step 1: Make permanent marginal rate cuts.

Step 2: Change those permanent rates that I just made permanent in step 1 to take another 20%.

I admit it could be that I lack cognitive skills, but the only way I see it is that the 20% cuts= Bush tax cuts.
____________________________________

I guess yes and no. Romney has always been for a fairly centric view of tax reform. He does not like the flat tax or fair tax due to their inherent prejudice towards working people. He definitely wants more tax reform, but his first phase is easier to implement, and would be necessary to be fairly moderate during the Obama recession/comeback economy.

His across the board cuts were not meant to be cuts at all. They were meant to reduce the marginal tax rates from Where they are Now. Step 1.

To avoid bankrupting the government, he would then make the tax more progressive by eliminating various deductions, loopholes and credits. At the same time, he's all for eliminating the AMT, inheritance tax, as well as agreeing with Obama on reducing corporate taxes.

According to my various spreadsheets, this cannot be done without having a higher tax burden on the middle class. But that's a nit.


Where everyone gets confused in in past history. Arguments over tax cuts for Job Creators (remember that fallacy?), prompted knee-jerkers to posture that all tax cuts for the wealthy would be paid for by tax increases to the middle class, as well as benefits cuts for others.

Paul Ryan being the VP candidate did not make the confusion go away, it enhanced it.

Tax Cuts For Job Creators. It was said so often that most wealthy people in business assumed it. Now they have a candidate saying NO, NO WAY.



Romney did a great job of laying out his promises on debate night. The worst part of that job is that people remember what GW Bush had promised many years ago.


Now for those really, really partisan Republicans. You'll need to change your tune from past rants. no tax cuts for the rich, no Broadening The Base for the rest. Romney promised.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822073 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 6:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Where everyone gets confused in in past history. Arguments over tax cuts for Job Creators (remember that fallacy?), prompted knee-jerkers to posture that all tax cuts for the wealthy would be paid for by tax increases to the middle class, as well as benefits cuts for others.

I think that Romney does depend on the GDP raising if the businesses in the US pay less tax and repatriate dollars at a lower rate.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: HMALETTER Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822075 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 6:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I think that Romney does depend on the GDP raising if the businesses in the US pay less tax and repatriate dollars at a lower rate.
_______________


Hope is an Obama type thing. Anyone that "Hopes" GDP will rise if companies repatriate dollars will never work for me. I would never invest in a company that made decisions based on such a preposterous move.


It's one thing to be fiscally conservative and not want higher taxes, and yet another to be stupendously stupid.


I've always thought that you didn't follow the tax policy discussions very well. Partisanship can and will blind you.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822084 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 7:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I've always thought that you didn't follow the tax policy discussions very well. Partisanship can and will blind you.

Well there is no doubt that a rising GDP will help the economy.

There are those who strongly believe that having more money flow into the economy as opposed to out of the economy into the government ... will result in an improved GDP. An large infusion of re-patriated money will have a specific, significant impact on the economy.

I agree that hope has no place in economics. I didn't use the term.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822085 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 7:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Ok.

Deficits don't matter.

The numbers are distracting.

Ignore your marginal rates.


I see a couple of cranes and a lot of bales of hay in your posts. Hey! You're building a strawman! Have fun knocking it down.

BTW. With this you addressed nothing I actually said. Let's see if you get around to it:

Romney will raise your taxes. Does that get your attention?

How so? So far all I've seen is you making your straw giant and that scarf. Oh! Now it all makes sense. The scarf is *for* the straw giant! Got it.

How about the narrative of, numbers matter when it's a Dem, but don't matter if Repub? Is that fair?

Show me a PA lib arguing about the numbers and Obama and I'll show you a lonely guy or gal.

Come on, leftists. Expressing opinions without making up stuff about the other side isn't that hard.

But let's test you out (all of your running mates on this forum have failed miserably. Speaking of numbers:

*Barack Obama plans to raise taxes on the 1% using the so-called "Buffet Rule". He will raise their marginal rates back to CLinton-era levels.

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/apr/23/rob-po...

(I'm even using PA lib-approved Politifact for you)

On March 20, 2012, Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation -- a nonpartisan body that estimates tax changes for lawmakers -- released a score of the Buffett Rule projecting $46.7 billion in additional revenue over 10 years, or $4.7 billion per year on average.

Individual income tax receipts in 2011 totaled $1.09 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and $4.7 billion is 0.4 percent of that.

The March 2012 CBO baseline of net interest spending in fiscal 2012 is $224 billion, which comes to $4.3 billion per week.

The annual revenue of the Buffett Rule -- $4.7 billion -- would pay that one week’s interest.


So. Open challenge to any PA lib with the skillz.

Given that Barack Obama's SIGNATURE TAX INCREASE won't do diddly/squat (see above for the fact that it only pays 1 weeks' worth of interest on the debt), how does he propose to close the remaining $1.3 trillion (or whatever it is) budget gap?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolsey1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822117 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 9:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You're building a strawman! Have fun knocking it down.

If I am, then it's inadvertent.

You had said it was picking nits to wonder if Romney wants the top marginal rate to be 35% or 28%, whereas to me it seems a reasonable area of interest.


Romney will raise your taxes.

How so?


The point is...review of the numbers behind his and other candidates' statements is a reasonable exercise. I find errors in Obama's numbers as well.


How about the narrative of, numbers matter when it's a Dem, but don't matter if Repub? Is that fair?

Show me a PA lib arguing about the numbers and Obama and I'll show you a lonely guy or gal.


Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seemed your derisive tone was about an attempt to understand what Romney says is part of his tax plan.


how does he propose to close the remaining $1.3 trillion (or whatever it is) budget gap?

Good question, and I'll see what I can find. The Buffett Rule is small potatoes, though, if it depends on millionaires paying a higher marginal rate on wages/tips/salaries.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822125 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/7/2012 9:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You had said it was picking nits to wonder if Romney wants the top marginal rate to be 35% or 28%, whereas to me it seems a reasonable area of interest.

Except that you tossed in things like "deficits don't matter", which nobody in this thread claimed.

The point is...review of the numbers behind his and other candidates' statements is a reasonable exercise. I find errors in Obama's numbers as well.

That's as may be, but where does it say that Mitt will raise my taxes?

Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seemed your derisive tone was about an attempt to understand what Romney says is part of his tax plan.

No, I'm shooting at left wingers who want to argue about Romney's tax treatment of security X while ignoring Obama's plans altogether.

Good question, and I'll see what I can find. The Buffett Rule is small potatoes, though, if it depends on millionaires paying a higher marginal rate on wages/tips/salaries.

The Buffet Rule is moronic for the simple reason that it will raise ~$4.7 billion a year. Won't matter in the slightest with respect to the deficit.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolsey1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822156 of 1972314
Subject: Re: GIngrich: Flip flopped on taxes Date: 10/8/2012 12:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Except that you tossed in things like "deficits don't matter", which nobody in this thread claimed.

That came after the context of me thinking you thought it was senseless to try to understand Romney's numbers, which would be as senseless as Cheney's comment that deficits don't matter. That's the connection.


That's as may be, but where does it say that Mitt will raise my taxes?

You took that too literally. I was thinking you thought it was senseless to look at the numbers, so I suggested the possibility of Romney raising your taxes as a way of making the point that reviewing the numbers might be a reasonable exercise. Please see it in the context in which it was said.


No, I'm shooting at left wingers who want to argue about Romney's tax treatment of security X while ignoring Obama's plans altogether.

A voter can reasonably want to understand the policy position of one candidate, and that has no bearing on what that voter feels towards the other main candidate. You're not going to vote for Obama, but it's reasonable for you to accurately understand his positions, if you're interested in doing so. Who knows, some opinions might be changed.


how does he propose to close the ... budget gap?

Good question,


Actually I take that back, it's not a good question. But I'm different because I think Republican policies caused most of the deficit, and Romney would continue with the same ideology. I also think Obama would have a much lower budget deficit to be criticized on if he had not given in to Republican demands on things like extension of marginal tax rate cuts, for example.


The Buffet Rule is moronic ... Won't matter in the slightest with respect to the deficit.

I agree. Thinking wealthier people are going to more fairly pay their share through W2 income misses the boat.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (29) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement