Romney: Why tax cut is a bad deal

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's why food stamps and extending unemployment insurance are the best stimulus to the economy. For every dollar spent on food stamps, $1.73 is generated throughout the economy. Expanding unemployment benefits gets the next biggest bang for the buck. That's because, although the unemployed are already getting checks, they need to spend the money. For every dollar spent here, the economy would see a return of $1.64. The Bush tax cuts are a horrible deal on stimulus grounds, returning only 35 cents in new economic activity for each dollar we spend.

ref. ref.

As I have said 100 times, the best stimulus is infrastructure spending. It has a high kickback into the system and it isn't giving away money for nothing like food stamps and unemployment.

That said, it is comical that 'Across the board tax cuts' shows 3 times the benefits as the 'Bush tax cuts' when the Bush tax cuts WERE across the board cuts.

If you think Food Stamps and unemployment are the best way forward, you are batshit crazy.

Those are STOP GAP measures. They don't solve anything long term.

What is also funny about that study is it shows that putting money in the hands of individual consumers is the best method. Yet it also says that across the board tax cuts are far lower in benefit than food stamps. That makes little sense.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Tax the top dogs more to offset what ever losses are not made up by having the 2 trillion pumped back into the economy.

The thing is, top dogs stop earning incomes, so you can't tax what they haven't earned. You can pump all you want back into the economy, if no one is paying taxes, what difference does it make?

Screw diplomacy, we have more nukes and b-1 bombers. Let them get pissed, we'll just rattle our swords a little louder and drown them out.

Yeah, that sounds like a much more reasonable approach than anything I was thinking!

Don't call it an outsource tax, call it a fuck-you-to-everyone-who-shipped-jobs-overseas tax. Base it on whatever you want, just get the money back here where it belongs.

Doesn't matter what you call it, as the Obama Administration is finding out on health care. The SCOTUS isn't going to allow you to usurp the Constitution. Legally speaking, the money belongs precisely where it is at, you haven't made a case otherwise.

In the mean time I'll be getting Alcatraz spiffed up to use for the U.S. version of the Bastille. The heads can be chopped on fishermans warf and rolled into the bay to chum for sharks.

I could eat me some nice shark steaks just now.

No need to mess with Alcatraz, we still own Gitmo! But who's heads are you planning to lob? Businessmen who followed the law and used CAFTA, NAFTA, and GATT to their advantage? That seems a bit harsh for people who simply did what the law Congress passed, told them they could do. Will you hold civil trials or inquisitions? Where is the ACLU on all of this? Seems that lobbing someone's head off and using it for shark chum, might just be a violation of civil rights.

 

[Bonestorm]

If you think Food Stamps and unemployment are the best way forward, you are batshit crazy.

Those are STOP GAP measures. They don't solve anything long term.

But that's what stimulus spending is supposed to be.

What is also funny about that study is it shows that putting money in the hands of individual consumers is the best method. Yet it also says that across the board tax cuts are far lower in benefit than food stamps. That makes little sense.

It makes plenty of sense. Food stamps are spent on purchases of food. Tax cuts are not necessarily spent on new purchases but are oftentimes either saved or used to pay down existing debt. That's the difference. If the tax cuts were made by issuing people vouchers that could only be used to purchase goods then the stimulative effect of tax cuts and food stamps would be the same. Likewise, unemployment benefits are typically spent as opposed to saved or used to pay down debt.

 

[Immanuel]

So what I am getting from the former Governor is that the main reason he is not happy about the compromise is that his (note his not mine) tax cuts won't be permanently entrenched in the laws of this nation. So, he doesn't want to play this game.

Gov. Romney makes a good point when he says, "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." I believe that if conditions are right, tax cuts for the rich do in fact help to spur growth, but the operative word there is "IF". Conditions have to be right. The important question is whether or not conditions are right at this time in our history and I have to say that I have my doubts as to whether or not those conditions are right today. Corporate taxes are already extremely low. Will lowering them further provide the additional boost necessary to increase revenues as promised? That is a question that any stores marketing department needs to answer whenever the store contemplates advertising a "sale". Will the lower prices bring in enough sales of the products to actually increase revenue or not? Like I said, at this point in time, I have my doubts.

What I find disturbing... disturbing but not unexpected, is that the man who may very well be the next Republican Candidate for the White House doesn't even seem to consider the need for tax cuts. Raising tax revenue won't do a doggone bit of good if Congress simply continues to raise expenditures above and beyond any increased tax revenues.

Immie

 

[Russellbor]

The thing is, top dogs stop earning incomes, so you can't tax what they haven't earned. You can pump all you want back into the economy, if no one is paying taxes, what difference does it make?

There's plenty of ways, the sixteenth amendment says that we the people can do whatever the hell we please. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." We'll tax the number of bathrooms, alfa romeos, the number of digits in their bank balances, there's always a way.

Yeah, that sounds like a much more reasonable approach than anything I was thinking!

A meeting of the minds! There is hope!

Doesn't matter what you call it, as the Obama Administration is finding out on health care. The SCOTUS isn't going to allow you to usurp the Constitution. Legally speaking, the money belongs precisely where it is at, you haven't made a case otherwise.

Change the law, take the money. It will be called "The no place to run, no place to hide" act.

No need to mess with Alcatraz, we still own Gitmo! But who's heads are you planning to lob? Businessmen who followed the law and used CAFTA, NAFTA, and GATT to their advantage? That seems a bit harsh for people who simply did what the law Congress passed, told them they could do. Will you hold civil trials or inquisitions? Where is the ACLU on all of this? Seems that lobbing someone's head off and using it for shark chum, might just be a violation of civil rights.

Gitmo is too far away. I don't want to have to have a visa or passport to be in attendance.

People are hungry, often homeless, usually unable to afford even meager health care and a system intent on exacerbating the problems rather than solving them. Meanwhile $70,000 camaros are selling out in minutes, Neiman-Marcus is having a banner year and corporate America is posting near record profits. And it's all legal. Monsieur the Marquis was legal when he ran down a child in the street. Like the Marquis, today's aristocracy thinks that throwing a coin or two at the problem will make it all better, besides, they're not breaking any laws...

Hindsight is 20/20 or so they say. Today's aristocrats should know better.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way--in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

Charles Dickens "A Tale Of Two Cities"

 

[Rationalist]

Corporate taxes are already extremely low.

Actually, corporate taxes in the USA are among the highest in the world, 39% being the top rate at the Federal level in addition to State corporate taxes, some of which exceed 10%. Even our Federal top rate by itself surpasses that of most other developed nations, including France (33%), Canada (18%), and the UK (28%).

Here's an interesting article. It's somewhat dated, but the information is still relevant:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0204.html

 

[Rationalist]

According to many Democrats, individuals who bring in $200,000 should be regarded as "wealthy." This is so laughable it warrants no response.

John McCain received a lot of flak for saying $5 million is the point at which one could be considered wealthy, and yet even that is not necessarily the case. It seems obvious to me that most liberals possess a very limited understanding of wealth, particularly as it relates to operating a small or medium-sized business.

I have no objection to temporarily taxing the super wealthy at a high rate to pay down the national debt - let's say, 50% on everything over $50 million. I do object to left-wing extremists such as Bernie Sanders penalizing the hard-working entrepreneurs who provide the majority of Americans with jobs.

 

[Phantasmal]

Actually, corporate taxes in the USA are among the highest in the world, 39% being the top rate at the Federal level in addition to State corporate taxes, some of which exceed 10%. Even our Federal top rate by itself surpasses that of most other developed nations, including France (33%), Canada (18%), and the UK (28%).

Here's an interesting article. It's somewhat dated, but the information is still relevant:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0204.html

How many corporations actually pay that rate, that is the question? I think the at the top with deductions that companies like Ford Motors paid only 7% and some nothing at all! What tax bracket they are in and the actuality of what they paid are two different things!

 

[Immanuel]

Actually, corporate taxes in the USA are among the highest in the world, 39% being the top rate at the Federal level in addition to State corporate taxes, some of which exceed 10%. Even our Federal top rate by itself surpasses that of most other developed nations, including France (33%), Canada (18%), and the UK (28%).

Here's an interesting article. It's somewhat dated, but the information is still relevant:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0204.html

I'll take your word for that and I don't know much, if anything at all, about foreign tax structures but if I really wanted to go into the discussion I would first look at the effective rate of taxation rather than the marginal rate.

That is not to say that I would find that I was right and you were wrong, but rather that I suspect that the effective rate of corporate taxation is low enough today that lowering it more would not amount to a whole heck of a lot of beans if you know what I mean.

Immie

 

[Rationalist]

How many corporations actually pay that rate, that is the question? I think the at the top with deductions that companies like Ford Motors paid only 7% and some nothing at all! What tax bracket they are in and the actuality of what they paid are two different things!

I'm sure many large corporations have the financial/legal resources to wiggle out of paying higher rates (perhaps Ford is one of them), but small and medium-sized businesses do not. This results in disproportionate taxation.

What is needed is a flat corporate tax of 10 - 15% across the board. Many countries have replaced their "progressive" tax structure with a flat corporate tax and it has worked wonders. The bottom line is that corporate taxes are arguably the most harmful tax (even a UN study a couple years back reach that conclusion), so the taxation should be simple and low.

 

[Phantasmal]

I absolutely agree with that! A flat tax has always been my idea of fair

 

[DamnYankee]

I absolutely agree with that! A flat tax has always been my ide

That would destroy your beloved Democrat Party.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

According to many Democrats, individuals who bring in $200,000 should be regarded as "wealthy." This is so laughable it warrants no response.

John McCain received a lot of flak for saying $5 million is the point at which one could be considered wealthy, and yet even that is not necessarily the case. It seems obvious to me that most liberals possess a very limited understanding of wealth, particularly as it relates to operating a small or medium-sized business.

I have no objection to temporarily taxing the super wealthy at a high rate to pay down the national debt - let's say, 50% on everything over $50 million. I do object to left-wing extremists such as Bernie Sanders penalizing the hard-working entrepreneurs who provide the majority of Americans with jobs.

What's even worse is, they believe couples making $250k are wealthy! That's a fire house chief and a teacher's administrator's salaries. Typical American families who are not "wealthy" by any stretch. What's worse is, when all the debt finally kicks in, and the inflation along with the devaluation of the dollar, a $250k income will be just above the poverty level in America!

I have an objection with raising ANYONE'S taxes! It's a fundamental objection, rooted in a principle. This is not about the money, we can find ways to cut waste and fraud, and more than compensate for what we would ever gain in taxation. This is about the principle of taxing people based on their lot in life, and nothing more. Because you happen to make the decisions and choices you made to be successful, we are going to take more of your fortunes to redistribute them to those who didn't make those same choices. Nothing about that premise is fair or impartial, it is blatantly discriminatory and wrongheaded in principle. While it may be appropriate for those with wealth to voluntarily participate in redistribution of their wealth, it is not the government's right to make those choices on their behalf.

 

[Phantasmal]

It is not my Democratic party, I am not a registered Democrat, nor do I wish to be.

 

[DamnYankee]

It is not my Democratic party, I am not a registered Democrat, nor do I wish to be.

You're liberal, and liberalism survives in the US mainly due to the Democrat Party. A flat tax would destroy the Democrat Party and therefore destroy liberalism.

 

[Immanuel]

You're liberal, and liberalism survives in the US mainly due to the Democrat Party. A flat tax would destroy the Democrat Party and therefore destroy liberalism.

A flat tax would be better than what we have today, but I still think the "Fair Tax" kicks butt over either. With a flat tax, it will still be too easy to hide income and not pay taxes at all.

Immie

 

[Phantasmal]

You're liberal, and liberalism survives in the US mainly due to the Democrat Party. A flat tax would destroy the Democrat Party and therefore destroy liberalism.

No it wouldn't you are reaching here, son.

 

[Immanuel]

No it wouldn't you are reaching here, son.

I don't think a flat tax would destroy the Democratic Party, but it would sure cut out a lot of the rhetoric they have to use in their manipulation of the poor. They would not be able to use the tax part of the class warfare equation they have learned to use so well i.e. "tax those evil rich people and tax them hard". Although they would still be able to strive for their social agenda which Republicans will never be able to compete with.

Immie

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

A flat tax would be better than what we have today, but I still think the "Fair Tax" kicks butt over either. With a flat tax, it will still be too easy to hide income and not pay taxes at all.

Immie

I agree, and the fair tax is a consumption tax, rather than income. For some reason, it just seems more logical to tax consumption and encourage income earning.

 

[Immanuel]

I agree, and the fair tax is a consumption tax, rather than income. For some reason, it just seems more logical to tax consumption and encourage income earning.

Seems more logical to me as well even without the adjustments made under the "Fair tax" act so as to reduce and/or eliminate taxes paid by the poor. But under the Fair Tax, the amount of taxes that someone would have to pay at the poverty level is refunded in advance so in effect those of us who do not make a lot of money would not pay taxes at all or even receive more each month than they spend. Even better it would capture taxes from illegal transactions i.e. drugs and from illegal aliens and visitors to our country.

Immie