UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (27) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 134254  
Subject: I'm confused. Date: 10/4/2012 4:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I know some of you think I'm perpetually confused, but I'm especially confused after last night's debate. I'm hoping someone here can clear this up.

Is Romney calling for a 20% across-the-board tax cut of $5 trillion or not?

Second related question: if a "tax cut" is revenue neutral how can it be a tax cut?
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 106814 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/4/2012 6:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
xLife,

Is Romney calling for a 20% across-the-board tax cut of $5 trillion or not?

As you already know, Romney is calling for a 20% tax rate cut.

You can google it in under a second:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax
"- Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates"

He denies it would lower revenue by $5 trillion.

Second related question: if a "tax cut" is revenue neutral how can it be a tax cut?

Again, of course you already know the answer. If the "tax cut" is a tax rate cut, then the resulting revenue could be lower, higher, or the same. If it's the same, the tax cut would be revenue neutral. Obviously Romney's call for a 20% tax cut is a call for a cut in the tax rate... since the government sets only the rate, not the revenue.

Aren't you tired of the word games yet? Pretending "tax cut" can only have one meaning... really?

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 106828 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/4/2012 9:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
As you already know, Romney is calling for a 20% tax rate cut.

Right. That's what I meant.

If the "tax cut" is a tax rate cut, then the resulting revenue could be lower, higher, or the same.

Well, he's saying that combined with closing loopholes that it's revenue neutral, which to me means it's not really a tax cut. Or rather, it'd be a tax cut for some, but an offsetting increase for others.

I see two problems with this:

1. There aren't enough "loopholes" to close to offset a 20% rate cut.
2. Since it's revenue neutral, some will pay more, others less -- so who is it that pays more versus less. (The Center for Tax Policy analysis suggests middle class households will pay an average of $2,000 more.)


Aren't you tired of the word games yet?

Actually, I'm sick of them. I don't think it's cricket to call a $2,000 tax increase on middle class households a "tax cut" just because the marginal rates are reduced 20%.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: drebbin Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 106829 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/4/2012 9:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Radish: Aren't you tired of the word games yet? Pretending "tax cut" can only have one meaning... really?

Even CNN called Stephanie Cutter out on 0bama's $5 trillion lie. And eventually, she admitted 0bama is lying. But I guess the trolls have to wait a little while for their talking points to refresh. That's what happens when you can't think for yourself, I suppose.

http://youtu.be/Gm_iAVgpiAg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 106837 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/4/2012 10:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Stopped Clock: Even CNN called Stephanie Cutter out on 0bama's $5 trillion lie.

Umm... I asked a question: "Is Romney calling for a 20% across-the-board tax cut of $5 trillion or not?"

Apparently not.

And Radish politely points out that the 20% rate cut is revenue neutral and therefore not really a tax cut at all. It just shifts the tax burden around from some folks to others.



That's what happens when you can't think for yourself, I suppose.

I can think for myself just fine thanks. You might try responding to what I actually write instead of making stuff up to rebut.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 106842 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/5/2012 5:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
xLife,

And Radish politely points out that the 20% rate cut is revenue neutral and therefore not really a tax cut at all.

I never said it was revenue neutral. I said Romney denies it would lower revenue by $5 trillion.

I said that a tax rate cut, generally speaking, could possibly be revenue neutral... but in the same sentence said it could also possibly raise or lower revenue.

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent 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: 106844 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/5/2012 6:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
xLife,

And Radish politely points out that the 20% rate cut is revenue neutral and therefore not really a tax cut at all.
_______________________________

You would think a pedantic pointless poster would be quite pleased with the idea that a tax cut could mean either rates or amount cllected.

Apparently, there is no way to make some people happy.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: drebbin Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 106847 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/5/2012 9:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Radish: I never said it was revenue neutral. I said Romney denies it would lower revenue by $5 trillion.

I said that a tax rate cut, generally speaking, could possibly be revenue neutral... but in the same sentence said it could also possibly raise or lower revenue.


0bama was back on the stump yesterday claiming that Romney has been going around the country promising a $5 trillion tax cut. That's what 0bama is telling everyone in his speeches. Can anyone, particularly trolls who crap themselves over supposed G0P "lies" (which turn out to be nothing of the sort if you look at, say, reality), pull up the video or audio or transcript of Romney promising $5 trillion tax cuts? Because that is what 0bama claims Romney is saying. Romney denied it to his face, but 0bama is right back on the stump making the charge. So this should be simple enough: provide the video or audio clip. Or don't, and just admit it is a lie. Like Stephanie Cutter did.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 106889 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/5/2012 8:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I never said it was revenue neutral. I said Romney denies it would lower revenue by $5 trillion.

My mistake then. Romney claims his tax cuts are revenue neutral. I thought you agreed.

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: 106890 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/5/2012 8:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I never said it was revenue neutral. I said Romney denies it would lower revenue by $5 trillion.

My mistake then. Romney claims his tax cuts are revenue neutral. I thought you agreed.



If allowing tax cuts to expire is the same thing as raising taxes, and if my deductions are more than my tax liability, then shouldn't taking away deductions be considered raising taxes?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 106891 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/5/2012 8:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If allowing tax cuts to expire is the same thing as raising taxes, and if my deductions are more than my tax liability, then shouldn't taking away deductions be considered raising taxes?

It sure would be - for you individually.

Are you saying that just because you found a single case in which an individual's taxes would go up, then you should label the whole plan as a tax increase?

Also if you use this criteria, shouldn't you also say that Obama's plans raise taxes on the poor by a lot more than Romney's?

So if you really cared about the poor and keeping taxes low, you should be an avid Romney supporter.

I can see this debate hurt Obama badly. Even the PA trolls are going to start having to think.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent 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: 106892 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/5/2012 8:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
f allowing tax cuts to expire is the same thing as raising taxes, and if my deductions are more than my tax liability, then shouldn't taking away deductions be considered raising taxes?
__________________________________

Huh?

Well, because letting tax cuts expire means you pay more taxes tomorrow

Taking away deductions at the same time that you lower rates so that you pay the same amount tomorrow is not.

Will you be able to find some exception somewhere to what is the the overwhelming intent and effect? You can ALWAYS do that, and it is a really dumb way to argue a case IMO

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent 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: 106893 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/5/2012 9:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I can see this debate hurt Obama badly. Even the PA trolls are going to start having to think.
__________________________-

Liar!!!<grin>

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 106896 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/5/2012 9:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If allowing tax cuts to expire is the same thing as raising taxes, and if my deductions are more than my tax liability, then shouldn't taking away deductions be considered raising taxes?

This is really amusing...

You throw out a hypothetical case and use that strawman as a refutation.

It's like saying; if you ran around, flapped your arms, honked, and pooped in my backyard would some people think you were a goose.

Of course *a few people* would think you were a goose. Mostly those would be crazy or stupid people.

In the example you provided sure *a few people* would count it as a tax increase - with the same caveats.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 106899 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/5/2012 9:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If allowing tax cuts to expire is the same thing as raising taxes, and if my deductions are more than my tax liability, then shouldn't taking away deductions be considered raising taxes?

Depends.

Romney's plan it to cut rates 20% across the board, but keep revenue the same by eliminating lots of deductions. He doesn't specify which deductions. So although supposedly "revenue neutral" some people would see tax cuts and others tax increases. We can only guess who will get which.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl 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: 106902 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/5/2012 10:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It's like saying; if you ran around, flapped your arms, honked, and pooped in my backyard would some people think you were a goose.

Of course *a few people* would think you were a goose.


Well, "goose" is one fairly-common euphemism for what I would think he is.

And not the only animal euphemism either.

However, I would not look to him as a potential source of feathers.

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: 106905 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/5/2012 10:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Response to all - Jim2B, lowstudent, XLife


My question is simple.

In 2010 Obama was going to be criticized for raising taxes if he asked Congress to allow the 2001/2003 cuts in marginal rates and long-term capital gains to expire.

In 2013, Romney is going to take away ALL my deductions and increase my alternative minimum tax in order to finance an across-the-board 20% reduction in marginal tax rates. I think I'm going to be paying much more in taxes.

Shouldn't I consider Romney as raising my taxes? And if I adhere to conservative ideology, shouldn't I be opposed to this?

As an aside - I'm fine with paying more. There are some things that only government can do, and for government to do those things the money has to come from somewhere, and the only place for it to come from is from people and corporations that have it. :-)

Even considering that I'll pay more under both Romney and Obama, at least under Obama I know what my top marginal rate will be and can estimate my effective rate, whereas under Romney it's unknown.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 106906 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/5/2012 11:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
My question is simple.

In 2010 Obama was going to be criticized for raising taxes if he asked Congress to allow the 2001/2003 cuts in marginal rates and long-term capital gains to expire.

In 2013, Romney is going to take away ALL my deductions and increase my alternative minimum tax in order to finance an across-the-board 20% reduction in marginal tax rates. I think I'm going to be paying much more in taxes.

Shouldn't I consider Romney as raising my taxes? And if I adhere to conservative ideology, shouldn't I be opposed to this?


Here's my take:

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire isn't "raising taxes." Or if it is, it's Bush that prospectively raised taxes, after lowering them, by making the cuts temporary. I don't see how you can blame Obama for letting Bush's legislation take it's course.

The logic is simple, but somewhat dependent on semantics. If Walmart has a one-month sale and lowers prices by 10%, we don't say "Walmart raised prices" when the sale ends.


In Romney's case, assuming his tax plan is really revenue neutral (I don't believe it will be), it will mean tax cuts for some and increased taxes for others, so it's not really a "tax cut." Of course, he's a politician so he'll focus on the positive and call it that anyway, ignoring the tax increases that offset the cuts. But by definition, if it's revenue neutral, it's not a general tax cut. Offsetting the closing of loopholes with a general rate reduction is more properly called tax simplification.

So some folks (guess who?) will get tax cuts. Other's (guess who?) will pay more taxes. If it is truly revenue neutral* that's how it has to be.

To answer your questions:

1. "Shouldn't I consider Romney as raising my taxes?"
2. If I adhere to conservative ideology, shouldn't I be opposed to this?"

1. It depends on whether the 20% rate reduction offsets your loss of deductions or not. My hunch is that the very wealthy will get a huge tax cut, the middle and upper-middle classes will see a significant tax hike and the lower classes will get a small cut if they pay income taxes.

2. It depends on whether you believe Romney or not. I don't think he's telling the truth about the revenue neutrality of his plan. I expect he'd run up the debt like past Republicans who've promised their tax cuts won't increase the deficit.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 106910 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/6/2012 7:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In 2013, Romney is going to take away ALL my deductions and increase my alternative minimum tax in order to finance an across-the-board 20% reduction in marginal tax rates. I think I'm going to be paying much more in taxes.

I guess you don't understand taxes all that well then, if you are paying AMT, then you don't get most deductions anyway.

If you are paying AMT under Obama, then you are one of the rich folk "not paying their fair share" (and you should be ashamed of yourself for shirking your moral responsibilities!). Furthermore, Obama promised to lower the tax boom on your head and make you pay for the healthcare of 23 million uninsured (including many illegal immigrant) people as well as raise taxes so Obama can send money to his political cronies (such as Solyndra).

You might be a little worse off with Romney than you are now, but you'll certainly be a LOT worse off under Obama.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent 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: 106912 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/6/2012 7:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You might be a little worse off with Romney than you are now, but you'll certainly be a LOT worse off under Obama.
__________________________________________

Heck, you will probably be much better off.

You will likely restructure your investments to actually make as much money as possible, as opposed to make as much money as possible after taxation.

You will make more, pay more, further society's actual mission of making things better for everyone(since you will be more productive) and just make the world an all around better place.

Congratulations

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: 106921 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/6/2012 10:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In 2013, Romney is going to take away ALL my deductions and increase my alternative minimum tax in order to finance an across-the-board 20% reduction in marginal tax rates. I think I'm going to be paying much more in taxes.

I guess you don't understand taxes all that well then, if you are paying AMT, then you don't get most deductions anyway.


I don't understand taxes very well, but I meant to write 'or' instead of 'and' in that sentence.


Obama promised to lower the tax boom on your head and make you pay for the healthcare of 23 million uninsured (including many illegal immigrant) people

Maybe I'd rather take the chance with the top marginal bracket going from 35% to 39.6% and the next bracket going from 33% to 36% under Obama, than losing all deductions and likely incurring some other as-yet unspecified tax increase under Romney so that his plan remains debt-neutral?

And I'd gladly pay more now in order to get coverage for those 29 million, as you mentioned moral responsibilities and all. Also, we pay for their health care at some point anyway, so let's try to prevent them from becoming catastrophically ill which then takes more healthcare dollars.

As an added bonus, I personally will benefit from those 29 million having coverage, as I see approx 7% uninsured patients now, and the hospitals where I work will be in better financial position as well to then expand their service lines.


s well as raise taxes so Obama can send money to his political cronies (such as Solyndra).

The debt-increasing billions funneled to Republican cronies bothers me much more.


You might be a little worse off with Romney than you are now, but you'll certainly be a LOT worse off under Obama.

Ok, just wanted to make sure I'm clear - Romney will raise taxes.

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: 106924 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/6/2012 11:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Romney's plan it to cut rates 20% across the board, but keep revenue the same by eliminating lots of deductions. He doesn't specify which deductions. So although supposedly "revenue neutral" some people would see tax cuts and others tax increases. We can only guess who will get which.


Washington Post says there's $1 trillion yearly in total tax breaks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/tax-co...

Tax Policy Center says there's $480 billion yearly in Romney's 20% rate reduction (x 10 years is the $5 trillion number Obama mentions).
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney_resources_20...

So maybe it's possible for the numbers to work out, meaning rate reduction could be offset by elimination of some deductions.

But what if much of those deductions favor middle and lower income households, and thus what if Congress declined to pass such legislation?

Assuming there's not enough base-broadening, Kevin Hassett insists Romney won't pursue the 20% rate reduction.
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/09/25/will-romney-sca...


Looks like a fair likelihood that in a Romney administration there wouldn't be much change to the tax code, and he'd continue with debt-expanding yearly deficits that plagued the last Republican administration.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 106932 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/6/2012 12:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Ok, just wanted to make sure I'm clear - Romney will raise taxes.

Apparently you are not clear.

Obama has raised taxes (those increases have not yet taken effect) and must raise them again (I think the health care bill has approximately 43 tax increases in it). The increased taxes you pay next year are all Obama's doing and not Romney's.

Romney promises to adjust to tax code. The net of the adjustment will approximately be zero. Some will pay more, some will pay less. If you currently have a high marginal rate and have a lot of non-business deductions, I expect you will likely pay more (this is NOT typical of someone already paying AMT).



Now you are claiming that because you personally might pay more in taxes, that Romney's plan is a "tax increase". Yet out of the other side of your mouth you claim Obama isn't raising taxes.

Obama's plan IS A TAX INCREASE for everyone (rich, middle class, and poor)! Marginal rates go up, there are fewer deductions and credits, and there are entirely new taxes to be paid (such as medical device taxes).


If you are worried about paying more in taxes, you will certainly do better under Romney than Obama regardless of how much you earn.


As for Obamacare improving your situation...
I beg you, please check some facts before spouting the democrat party line. Check how such plans affected the medical profession in Massachusetts and Washington. Increased wait times, decreased quality of care, increased cost of insurance, decreased pay to service providers (such as yourself).

Please do NOT take my word on this. Ignore the democrats and republicans for a while and go educate yourself. You are seriously about to screw yourself worse than you can possibly imagine.

Imagine having to pay more in taxes and malpractice insurance and ONLY medicare patients and try to earn a living. This is what you are about to do. Also remember that most employees and companies will cease buying insurance so even more people will come to you with none.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 106933 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/6/2012 1:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Washington Post says there's $1 trillion yearly in total tax breaks.

Look, you've quoted one extremely liberal source to support your position and another that's normally pretty neutral except it has an axe to grind in regards to Romney's tax plan.

Why do you insist on using other sources to try to read Romney's mind? Why not check out Romney's plan at Romney's web page.

Looks like a fair likelihood that in a Romney administration there wouldn't be much change to the tax code, and he'd continue with debt-expanding yearly deficits that plagued the last Republican administration.

You keep nitpicking the Romney plan and I'd like to see more details too (perhaps by the next debate) and claiming how bad it will be for you in particular and you use these nits to justify voting against Romney. However, you never take the mental leap to comparing Romney's plan to Obama's.

I'm not sure if this is a sign of cognitive dissonance or some other issue, but when you compare the points with which you have expressed "issues" under the Romney's plan, you would actually fair worse under Obama's policies (I use the word "policies" because Obama hasn't bothered to talk about a plan for the future - we can only go by what he has already done).

So complain all you want about Romney, publish all of the negative articles from liberal rags that you want, despite all of that noise when it comes down to making an evaluation I'll do what any rational human can do:

Look at both, compare them against each other, and make a choice.

I don't understand why you only look at the blemishes on one side and decide solely upon those blemishes.

Look, you are in medicine, n'est pas?

When you prescribe medication for a disease, do you look only at the side-effects of one treatment and elect to prescribe the other without even bothering to know what the side effects of the alternate are?

If you do you should be sued for malpractice. The same is true in an election. You are looking only at the negatives of Mitt's plan, you have not bothered to look at the negatives of Obama's.

Normally I'd be happy to wash my hands of you and allow you to take the lumps you deserve, unfortunately *your* choice affects me too.

You are inflicting *your* health care choice on me.
You are inflicting *your* crony capitalism on me.
You are inflicting *your* crappy economy on me.
You are inflicting *your* deficits on my kids.

and you should be sued for malpractice for it.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl 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: 106934 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/6/2012 1:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I beg you, please check some facts before spouting the democrat party line. Check how such plans affected the medical profession in Massachusetts and Washington. Increased wait times, decreased quality of care, increased cost of insurance, decreased pay to service providers (such as yourself).

Minor correction.

Under the state of Washington's medical-insurance reform of 1993 - which resembled Hillarycare so strongly that some pages of the bill went from prep room to the state House floor bearing fax-page headers from the White House - in some Washington counties the cost of individually purchased health-care insurance dropped to precisely $0.00 by midyear 1994...

...

... because insurers stopped renewal of existing policies and would not write new ones. At all.

(And in the 1994 election, the state House went from solid majority Democrat to solid majority Republican. The state Senate retained a slim Democrat lead, but with an unusually high proportion of new faces even among the Democrats. Virtually all the newcomers and a substantial share of the returning incumbents had made campaign promises to repeal the 1993 reform. It was that bad, that fast. The 1995 reform created what is quite possibly the most sensible - but not perfect - set of health-care-insurance laws in the country.)

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: 106955 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/6/2012 10:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The increased taxes you pay next year are all Obama's doing and not Romney's.

Yes, the main ones are an extra 0.9% Medicare tax and a 3.8% investment income tax.


Romney promises to adjust to tax code. The net of the adjustment will approximately be zero.

I've read his website backwards and forwards, and I think it's doubtful the net effect will be zero. I think there will be an increased burden on lower income households, and therefore no significant changes will get passed by Congress.


Now you are claiming that because you personally might pay more in taxes, that Romney's plan is a "tax increase". Yet out of the other side of your mouth you claim Obama isn't raising taxes.

Now I see what you're not understanding about my comments.

My personal tax liability won't dictate whom I vote for, so there's that.

There are tax increases under Obama's policies, and I've never denied or otherwise mentioned it.

Romney has said he won't raise taxes on middle income households, so I'll take him at his word for it; given the lack of specifics about which deductions he'd disallow, his number might not work out such that nothing gets changed (ie, as one of his economic advisors insists, they'll not push for changes if the numbers don't work out). Or, Congress may decline to enact Romney's suggested changes, in which case nothing gets changed.


If you currently have a high marginal rate

Honestly I don't really focus on top marginal rates. I care more about my effective federal income tax rate, which is always usually below 20% based on both AGI and taxable income.


Check how such plans affected the medical profession in Massachusetts and Washington. Increased wait times, decreased quality of care, increased cost of insurance, decreased pay to service providers...

The larger issue is about getting more people with access to health care. And I don't mean just go to the ER for your primary care, as Romney thinks is acceptable.

Take a person who didn't have coverage, but now he does, and he'll gladly wait to be seen. That's precisely what I hear from them.

No doubt everyone will have to know that there will be a period of adjustment, maybe even 3-5 years. More docs will be needed, older solo practice and small groups might not make it if they're unwilling to adapt as systems of reimbursement will change from 'bill as much as you can' to outcomes-based performance measures. But we know there can be a system in which most folks have access to health care...most other countries do it, and some do it very well.

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: 106956 of 134254
Subject: Re: I'm confused. Date: 10/6/2012 11:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Washington Post says there's $1 trillion yearly in total tax breaks.

Look, you've quoted one extremely liberal source to support your position and another that's normally pretty neutral except it has an axe to grind in regards to Romney's tax plan.

Why do you insist on using other sources to try to read Romney's mind? Why not check out Romney's plan at Romney's web page.


Uhm, I produced a number, a number that works in Romney's favor, for sake of discussion. My point wasn't about the source or the number, but rather the concept. Sorry if that wasn't clear. And on Romney's website, neither his 9-page tax policy nor 87-page full policies get into these numbers numbers we're discussing.


You are looking only at the negatives of Mitt's plan, you have not bothered to look at the negatives of Obama's.

I don't understand how you can make that statement. I can admits positives for what Romney says about his plans, and can admit a lot of negatives about Obama. Don't make assumption about thoughts I haven't typed into these message boards.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (27) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement