Romney: Why tax cut is a bad deal

Following the Reagan tax cuts in 1981, revenues were basically flat in 1983. As a percentage of GDP, revenues dropped precipitously.

nice cherry pick...by the time he left office revenues were higher, your correlation sucks, you're totally ignoring other factors and solely blaming lower taxes, total and complete nonsense

do you deny that kennedy's tax cuts increased government revenue?
 
They say that tax cuts for the rich can increase the proportion of taxes that rich people pay, not that tax cuts can increase revenues.

Nigel, the wealthy pay about 90% of all taxes! If their proportion is increased, there has to be an increase in overall revenues too.

Following the Reagan tax cuts in 1981, revenues were basically flat in 1983. As a percentage of GDP, revenues dropped precipitously.

This is how liberals misconstrue the data, in their world of Static Economics! When the top marginal rates are actually lowered, and when you begin to realize the revenue gains from that action, can be several years. Generally speaking, most business plans are for 5 years. During that period, it is typically not expected that the business will be profitable, as in, generating taxable revenues. So, any spur in economic growth by way of new business and the subsequent tax revenues, would not be apparent in 1983. Take a look at revenues around 1987, before Bush Sr. broke his promise of no more taxes... revenues had increased precipitously.
 
And I am sure you can show us how this is not true and how we have misconstrued the date and how the tax cuts have created millions of jobs since they were implemented, right! Put up or, well, you know!
 
By Mitt Romney
Death and taxes, it is said, are life's only two certainties. But in the wake of President Obama's tax compromise with congressional Republicans, only death retains the status of certainty: The future for taxes has been left up in the air. And uncertainty is not a friend of investment, growth and job creation.

The deal has several key features. It reduces payroll taxes, extends unemployment benefits and keeps current tax rates intact. So far, so good. But intermixed with the benefits are considerable costs of consequence. Given the unambiguous message that the American people sent to Washington in November, it is difficult to understand how our political leaders could have reached such a disappointing agreement. The new, more conservative Congress should reach a better solution.

The deal keeps current tax rates from rising to pre-Bush era levels for two years. But in 2013, unless Congress acts again, rates will increase dramatically.

Extension temporary

Of course, delay now is better than an immediate tax hike. But because the extension is only temporary, a large portion of the investment and job growth that characteristically accompanies low taxes will be lost. When entrepreneurs and employers make decisions to start or expand an enterprise, uncertainty about tax rates translates directly into a reduced propensity to invest and to hire. With only a two-year extension, investors know that before their returns are realized, tax rates may be jacked up to the levels favored by President Obama. So while the tax deal will succeed in temporarily putting more money in the hands of consumers, it will fail to deliver its full potential for creating lasting growth.

It will also add to the deficit. In many cases, lowering taxes can actually increase government revenues. If new businesses, new investments and new hiring are spurred by the prospects of better after-tax returns, the taxes paid by these new or growing businesses and employees can more than make up for the lower rates of taxation. But once again, because the tax deal is temporary, a large portion of this beneficent effect is missing. What some are calling a grand compromise is not grand at all, except in its price tag. The total package will cost nearly $1 trillion, resulting in substantial new borrowing at a time when we are already drowning in red ink.

Part of the tax deal is a temporary reduction in payroll taxes. The president was insistent, however, that only the employee's payroll taxes be reduced — the portion paid by the employer is to remain the same. Again, the president is looking to get more money into the hands of the consumer to boost near-term spending. But by refusing to lower the cost of hiring a new employee, he fails to encourage what the American people want even more than lower taxes — more good jobs. Like the income tax deal, the payroll tax deal will add to the deficit.

For those without jobs, the tax compromise extends unemployment benefits for 13 months. A decent and humane society must have a strong safety net for the unemployed. I served for 15 years as a lay pastor in my church and saw the heartbreak of joblessness up close; a shattering loss of faith in oneself is but only one of many forms the suffering can take. Nonetheless, the vital necessity of providing for those without work should not be used as an excuse to ignore the very real problems of our unemployment system.

In this, as in so many other arenas of government policy, unemployment insurance has many unintended effects. The indisputable fact is that unemployment benefits, despite a web of regulations, actually serve to discourage some individuals from taking jobs, especially when the benefits extend across years.

Redo jobless benefits

The system is also not designed for a flexible economy like ours in which some employees move from job to job for short periods, and are therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation when they are faced with a protracted spell without work.

To remedy such problems we need a very different model, perhaps establishing individual unemployment savings accounts over which employees would exercise direct control when they lose their jobs, or putting in place financial incentives for employers to hire and train the long-term unemployed. One thing is certain: While we cannot rebuild our flawed system overnight, we are surely not required to borrow the funds to pay for it. In spending $56.5 billion to extend benefits, the deal is sacrificing the bedrock Republican principle that new expenditures be paid for with offsetting budget cuts.

President Obama has reason to celebrate. The deal delivers short-term economic stimulus, and it does so at the very time he wants it most, before the 2012 elections. But the long term health of our great engine of prosperity will remain very much in doubt. To the twin inevitabilities of death and taxes, we may now have to add persistent high unemployment.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

This is why you should NEVER compromise with the Republicans.

THE CONSERVATIVES CANNOT BE TRUSTED
 
nice cherry pick...by the time he left office revenues were higher, your correlation sucks, you're totally ignoring other factors and solely blaming lower taxes, total and complete nonsense

do you deny that kennedy's tax cuts increased government revenue?

The growth in revenue during Reagan's term was smaller than the growth in revenue in the preceding 8 years. Reagan's tax cuts had a definite negative effect on revenue.

The marginal tax rate in the 70's was arguably above the laffer curve, but Reagan cut to way below the laffer curve.
 
The growth in revenue during Reagan's term was smaller than the growth in revenue in the preceding 8 years. Reagan's tax cuts had a definite negative effect on revenue.

The marginal tax rate in the 70's was arguably above the laffer curve, but Reagan cut to way below the laffer curve.

total growth was really smaller? i wouldn't call half a trillion dollars smaller....but hey, thats just me
 
By the way, anyone else find Romney's proposal to eliminate the current unemployment insurance system with individual unemployment savings accounts batshit crazy?
 
Where were you when Bush started unfunded wars and turned black ink to red? Where were you when 'republicon philosophy on economic strategy' sent our manufacturing to asia? I realize you want profits over people when it comes to healthcare and are willing to step over dead bodies on your way to work but there are some of us who actually care about the sick.
When you say 'the people' I understand you're not talking about workers but the monied interests that see this country as a cash cow. Come on say what you mean.

I was with 2/3 of the country when Bush went to war...including a large number of democrats...a complex issue that Monday morning quarterbacks can disect with much smugness or much chagrin depending on where you once stood.

Republican philosophy did no such thing. Manufacturing went abroad because domestic manufacturing became unprofitable due to union wage gouging and unfriendly tax policy...those two things change and manufactoring comes back.

When I say "people" I am talking about the majority of people who voted for the party soon to be in power because they did not like the policies of Obama and his congress who were in power.
 
I was with 2/3 of the country when Bush went to war...including a large number of democrats...a complex issue that Monday morning quarterbacks can disect with much smugness or much chagrin depending on where you once stood.

It wasn't a complex issue, then or now. Bush rushed us into an unnecessary war, and it was one of the worst foreign policy decisions in modern history.
 
It wasn't a complex issue, then or now. Bush rushed us into an unnecessary war, and it was one of the worst foreign policy decisions in modern history.

How many goddamn times are you going to repeat this rhetoric? How many fucking years or generations are we going to have to endure of this? I mean really man... We've beaten the dead horse for 8 years, dug him back up 3 or 4 times and beat him some more, and you STILL want to drag him back out and beat him yet again... WHY? We disagree with your assessment! We're never going to agree with your take on the Iraq War! It doesn't matter at this point, whether we agree or disagree on Iraq... the mother fucking war is OVER! It doesn't matter how much it cost, the money has been spent! It doesn't matter how many died, they are dead! Can we please, at some point in your lifetime, move beyond this silly and superfluous debate on a war that is over?
 
How many goddamn times are you going to repeat this rhetoric? How many fucking years or generations are we going to have to endure of this? I mean really man... We've beaten the dead horse for 8 years, dug him back up 3 or 4 times and beat him some more, and you STILL want to drag him back out and beat him yet again... WHY? We disagree with your assessment! We're never going to agree with your take on the Iraq War! It doesn't matter at this point, whether we agree or disagree on Iraq... the mother fucking war is OVER! It doesn't matter how much it cost, the money has been spent! It doesn't matter how many died, they are dead! Can we please, at some point in your lifetime, move beyond this silly and superfluous debate on a war that is over?

I appreciate your defensiveness about it, since you were one of that war's biggest cheerleaders. It must be hard for you in retrospect.

But, as long as people like ID try to characterize it as a popular war, a "complex" decision, and something that can be dissected by "Monday morning quarterbacks," I'll keep reminding them that it wasn't, and was actually a really rushed, dumb decision.

Sorry about that.
 
It wasn't a complex issue, then or now. Bush rushed us into an unnecessary war, and it was one of the worst foreign policy decisions in modern history.
Just a bit of Historical TRUTH for those that might be interested...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
======================================================================
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution"]Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Unbalanced_scales.svg" class="image"><img alt="Unbalanced scales.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Unbalanced_scales.svg/45px-Unbalanced_scales.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/f/fe/Unbalanced_scales.svg/45px-Unbalanced_scales.svg.png[/ame]

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
 
LOL - you can always count on bravs for the "Dems forced Bush into war" perspective.

Good luck w/ that rewriting....
 
whoever this idiot Nigel is, they are fucking in denial about economics.

Seriously? Tax rate uncertainty doesn't cause employers to not hire? You are an idiot!!
 
I appreciate your defensiveness about it, since you were one of that war's biggest cheerleaders. It must be hard for you in retrospect.

But, as long as people like ID try to characterize it as a popular war, a "complex" decision, and something that can be dissected by "Monday morning quarterbacks," I'll keep reminding them that it wasn't, and was actually a really rushed, dumb decision.

Sorry about that.

Yes, I was one of the wars biggest cheerleaders! I stood on the sidelines and waved my pom-poms while brave young men and women went and died in an "unjust war for oil" during the Bush years! Not only am I PROUD of that fact, if I had it to do all over again, I would still be a cheerleader for the war! Nothing has changed with my perspective of Iraq, and nothing ever will! You can keep dragging it back out, keep rehashing the same tired old talking points, making the same baseless claims, repeating the same mindless rhetoric, and you can goddamn do that for the next 75 fucking years, and I will STILL feel the exact same way about Iraq! You can keep reminding people all you like, it wasn't "stupid" to liberate 30 million people and depose a tyrant dictator. If you wish to believe that was stupid, or you don't agree that Iraq is markedly better off, you are an abject idiot, and there isn't any need to converse with you further.
 
Yes, I was one of the wars biggest cheerleaders! I stood on the sidelines and waved my pom-poms while brave young men and women went and died in an "unjust war for oil" during the Bush years! Not only am I PROUD of that fact, if I had it to do all over again, I would still be a cheerleader for the war! Nothing has changed with my perspective of Iraq, and nothing ever will! You can keep dragging it back out, keep rehashing the same tired old talking points, making the same baseless claims, repeating the same mindless rhetoric, and you can goddamn do that for the next 75 fucking years, and I will STILL feel the exact same way about Iraq! You can keep reminding people all you like, it wasn't "stupid" to liberate 30 million people and depose a tyrant dictator. If you wish to believe that was stupid, or you don't agree that Iraq is markedly better off, you are an abject idiot, and there isn't any need to converse with you further.

Where were the WMD's?
 
You know, this is typical of you sleazy fuckers. You won't talk about what you don't want to talk about... you'll start up some more bullshit about Bush or Iraq, to avoid the conversation! It doesn't matter to you that Obama INCREASED our presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan, doesn't matter that Obama articulated how vitally important it was for us to WIN both wars... just like it doesn't matter to you that a majority of Congress acted in bipartisan fashion to authorize the war to begin with! You don't want to face reality when it comes to Iraq, but you for goddamn sure want to talk about Iraq instead of any of the issues at hand.
 
You know, this is typical of you sleazy fuckers. You won't talk about what you don't want to talk about... you'll start up some more bullshit about Bush or Iraq, to avoid the conversation! It doesn't matter to you that Obama INCREASED our presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan, doesn't matter that Obama articulated how vitally important it was for us to WIN both wars... just like it doesn't matter to you that a majority of Congress acted in bipartisan fashion to authorize the war to begin with! You don't want to face reality when it comes to Iraq, but you for goddamn sure want to talk about Iraq instead of any of the issues at hand.

You realize that I didn't bring up Iraq, right?
 
Back
Top