Hello:

Our right wing friends LOVE to tell us how they hated George W. Bush for blowing up the deficit. Ok, maybe he snuck it in on them and did 'em dirty..

But, Romney is telling us, IN ADVANCE, that he's going to blow up the deficit. He's going to give everybody a 20% tax cut and tell us HOW he's going to pay for it later... How did Chris Wallace put it? That's like offering voters the candy of a 20 percent tax cut without mentioning the spinach they will have to eat.

Why WON'T he tell us about the spinach? That's simple. His numbers don't add up. They just DON'T..

I know, I know, Romney has SIX, count 'em, SIX independent studies saying that HIS numbers DO add up... Again, Chris Wallace, the guy from FOX News busted him... "We know that those “six studies” aren't studies at all, four of them are blog posts or op eds, and the fifth is simply a paper from the uber-right-wing Heritage Foundation."

The Joint Committee on Taxation, a respected panel that's evenly divided between the parties, says that if ALL the loopholes were closed, it would only pay for a tax cut of 4%. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/opinion/mitt-romney-needs-a-working-calculator.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121016)

So, if he follows through with his 20% tax cut, he's going to pay for it by BORROWING the money from CHINA, just like George W. Bush did, or he's going to do it on the backs of the poor..

excon

Obamacare is now estimated by the CBO to be triple what the original promissed cost was by Obama and that's likely to go FAR higher...

And that alone is almost as much as the TOTAL debt run up by Bush.. and doesn't even begine to include the OTHER debt Obama ran up.

Hello smoothy:

So, you're willing to change one big spender with another?? What's THAT going to solve?

excon

In the meantime the press continues to allow the adm their shifting definition of 'millionaires and billionaires' . The plan is to ONLY increase taxes on them. But where is the cutoff ? Joe Biden played loose during his incoherent rants at the VP debate ;but from what I can tell ,the President's definition of 'millionaires and billionaires' who he wants to raise taxes on is as low as $250,000 income for a two income earning family living already in high taxed states. His 'millionaires and billionaires' could be a fireman and a teacher doing some overtime to make ends meet.

Hello again, tom:

Yeah, we're having the same discussion in reverse. When Romney talks about small business, are people like the Donald and hedge fund managers included??

We CAN agree, can't we, that as voters, we're operating in the dark? There's no specifics from EITHER side.

excon

Si se puede

I would agree with you if I wasn't certain that a supply side growth would more than offset the loss of revenues... that is as long as he held to his word that he'd also trim the budget and reform entitlements.
My position on middle income deductions is that it is more beneficial for the middle income to have the money in their pocket than to have to play accounting games that puts them at a disadvantage to those who can afford expensive tax accountants to work out the details ;and then have to wait a third of the year for a piddling check from the IRS for the effort. So ;for a low flat rate ,I'd gladly give up my middle income deductions.

Hello again, tom:


I would agree with you if I wasn't certain that a supply side growth would more than offset the loss of revenues .Let's pretend for a minute that I agree with the economics. The math still doesn't add up... There will NEVER be enough growth to offset a tax cut of this magnitude.. Remember, that's not ME saying it... It's a bipartisan congressional committee. Certainly, they took SOME measure of growth into account...

Now, you can HOPE those magic numbers will hold up, because he's getting 'em from his magic underwear..

Excon

You supply side capitalists never factor demand, because then you would have to admit ordinary people circulate money while rich guys horde it. That's what destroys capitalism and our consumer driven economy.

Romney knows all that and he knows if he tells you how his plan really works, the election would be over yesterday.

Taxes alone just don't get you there, and Romney has been fact checked as WRONG. But I know you guys hope the nation hates the Prez enough to believe anything the right is saying.

HIS numbers don't add up.

Fact checkers lol Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who fact checks the fact checkers ?

15 Things the GOP Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes and the Debt | Crooks and Liars (http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/15-things-gop-doesnt-want-you-know-about-taxes-debt)





1.President Obama Cut Taxes for Almost All Working Americans
2.Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt
3.George W. Bush Doubled the National Debt
4.Reagan Raised Debt Ceiling 17 Times, Bush Seven
5.Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves
6.Almost All Working Americans Pay Taxes
7.The GOP's "Job Creators" Don't Create Jobs
8.Low Capital Gains Taxes Fuel Income Inequality...
9... But Not Investment
10.The Estate Tax Has Virtually No Impact on Family Farms and Businesses
11. Income Inequality Has Reached an 80 Year High...
12... While the Federal Tax Burden Has Hit a 60 Year Low
13.Romney-Ryan Plan Another Massive Tax Cut Windfall for the Wealthy
14.Romney, Ryan Won't Say Which of the $1 Trillion in Tax Breaks GOP Will End
15.Romney-Ryan Will Add More Debt Than President Obama

Read the whole thing and get facts and not opinions or SPIN!!

Obama's Buffet Rule will raise an estimated $40 billion a year. What's that as a percentage of an Obama budget?

History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt)

Here are the facts, the Obama Tax Proposal is a tax reduction for every one even Warren Buffet, up to $250,000. That means only 3% that make above that will pay more.

And how does that pay for his ambitious spending agenda ? Answer not even close... keep the printing press running so the debt can be paid with inflated dollars . Welcome to the Weimar Republic.

By the way ;Romney's plan is a variation of Simpson -Bowles. The President commissioned their study then rejected it because he could not sell to his base that reducing rates expands the tax base. I don't care what the Dem... oops I mean independent 'Tax Policy Center claims .

Took a look at those expenditure figures Tom and yes it has been chronic over, let's say, the last ten years but there is a decline in the deficit projected. The answer is always two fold, you know this, increasing revenue and reigning in spending. Increasing revenue comes from a recovering economy or in the absence of that, increased tax, and reigning in spending, that's hard to do it you have a hands off policy on certain parts of the budget, like military spending. So just focusing of spending can't get the job done, unless you are willing to retire some aircraft carriers, reduce the size of the army and air force, but I know; that wouldn't help unemployment.

You are in a cleft stick, held in place by a glue of your own making, and realism is the only approach. You don't need a tax holiday, you need a tax hike, as in doing away with a cumbersome system and starting again with a simple system, you earn income, you pay tax , you want a flat rate then have the flat rate off the top for everyone, corporations and people alike. No deductions, no subsidies, no allowances. Given existing statistics I would suggest 20%. I can hear the corporations howling from here. The way it would work is abolish individual tax and make corporations and business pay over 20% of their gross. This way everyone pays the tax one way or another. People would have more to spend, instant recovery, government would have more revenue

as in doing away with a cumbersome system and starting again with a simple system, you earn income, you pay tax , you want a flat rate then have the flat rate off the top for everyone, corporations and people alike. No deductions, no subsidies, no allowances.

Pretty much as I have been saying .

Given existing statistics I would suggest 20%. I can hear the corporations howling from here.
Why ? It would be a marginal tax reduction being that US corps pay the highest tax rates in the
1st world . I don't care if they don't like it if break elimination would be part of the deal. They'd make out by not having to hire an army of bean counters.

Tom my suggestion is vastly different to yours, since your rich and corporations pay nothing like 20% of gross. Your rates are set for net before concessions bring down the effective rate. What I have really said, reading between the lines, is you have your corporations look after health care insurance, have them look after tax too, but take tax off the top, not off the bottom and eliminate personal tax, so the tax is effectively a consumption tax, not an income tax. You want to keep your money, it's easy. You spend it you pay tax. It would take five years, given your present level of commerce to collect sufficient tax to equal your national debt, and, of course, once you eliminate that, you eliminate a huge interest bill which is part of spending freeing up trillions. If 20% is too high make it 10%, it takes longer to deal with the national debt, but it will give you that tax led recovery you are looking for.

I know this sort of thinking works. I applied it to reduce the debt of a corporation to nil, without additional capital

Tom, just so you know, my ideas are based on the Romney idea that corporations are people, and everything a corporation earns ultimately goes to the people, so I say let the people get their share first

Corporations pay people ,their shares are held by real people including many pension and
401-k plans.People do get their share first . What you fail to address is that corporate taxes are also paid by people. The taxes corporations pay are passed on to the consumer in the price they pay for the goods and services the corporations provide.

The taxes corporations pay are passed on to the consumer in the price they pay for the goods and services the corporations provide.

Now Tom that's not how it is supposed to work, that's what we call double dipping, but I shouldn't be surprised a Yankee would think that way

It's a fact . The taxes paid are overhead that gets added on to the price of goods and services . That's true even in Australia .

In traditional accounting methodology Tom taxes aren't figured in until you actually make a profit, what you do is determine the rate of return you want and work out the structure it takes to get there. A market will pay a certain amount for a product and they won't pay just any price. Tax doesn't drive the business Tom, it is entirely wrong thinking to think it does

Now if you are operating with a GST that is a horse of a different colour since that is outside the profit structure

Tax doesn't drive the business Tom, it is entirely wrong thinking to think it does

No it doesn't ,it is just part of the overhead that has to be captured in the price. What ? You think the business is going to absorb it in their margins ? No ;overhead is factored into the price of a product . Prices are still competitive because all competitors have to pay the tax also.

No it doesn't ,it is just part of the overhead that has to be captured in the price. What ? You think the business is going to absorb it in their margins ? No ;overhead is factored into the price of a product . Prices are still competitive because all competitors have to pay the tax also.

Tom when I calculate the cost of a product I don't include tax in the calculation, when I calculate selling price it is judgment call on value. I might have in the back of my mind we have to make a profit, but there are many components of price in a product and they are driven by costs, they are driven by volume, how can tax be factor in what is a fluctuating variable driven by market forces. In your world what tax rate do I use; the nominal tax rate or the effective tax rate? Each competitor is in a different tax position, it cannot influence how they relate to the market in a pricing situation. No one thinks this is the price, I will scale up for tax, next you will be telling me the dividend is factored into the price as a conscious calculation. It is no wonder your markets aren't recovering if your corporations think like this

I will scale up for tax,
Agree . Your overhead (including taxes ) has to be factored in the price of your product unless you are willing to let it affect your margins and profits.

You selectively edited what I said taking my words out of context. Is that what republicans are Tom, liars? Manipulators? This is what I said the exact opposite of what you quoted

No one thinks this is the price, I will scale up for tax,

The end does not justify the means Tom under any circumstances

So manipulating the tax code for increased profits (like Romney, and the rich do), is the plan of business? No wonder we are in such a mess.

Thanks for proving the business model is BROKEN!!