1 2 > 
1 of 2
I have a question, Bob…
Posted: 18 October 2012 12:44 PM   [ Ignore ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  796
Joined  2012-10-10

Seems like we hear how the Republicans detest the “47%” who don’t pay taxes.  Of course, that includes many of our military heroes, farmers, single parents… but I digress.  If you don’t pay the IRS, you’re not doing your part.  If you are not wealthy enough to stow away your earned dollars overseas, paying only tax on the interest income, the Repubs say… “Pay up!!”

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve had the opportunity to catch portions of Beck’s radio show, Limbaugh’s radio show, and Huckabee’s radio show.  Each of these are know to be held sacred in the eyes of the far right.  Yet, another common denominator is the fact they all have “tax resolution” firms as sponsors.  Beck will say, “If you owe the IRS $20,000, call our sponsor and get that reduced to $2,000!”  Limbaugh will suggest, “Quit paying late penalties to the IRS.  Contact our sponsor and they will negotiate a settlement for much less than you owe!”

Is this not hypocritical?  Should these who tell us they are upset with those not paying tax, recommend to people businesses who will work hard to get you out of what you owe?  What am I missing?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2012 02:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

i don’t buy that republicans loathe the 47 percenters for the reasons you point out, larry.  it was a poor choice of words by mr. romney, to be sure.  the president, whoever he is, needs to focus on fixing the tax system that today allows for uneven, unfair tax treatment.  i happen to believe romney is best positioned to do that, like nixon was best positioned, as a republican, to open the doors to china and end the vietnam war.

we can’t continue along this line, or the country will go down the sewer.  and i believe the candidate arguments would be better made if they dealt with the specifics of how each would go about fixing the tax code.  i’ve heard way more on that from romney than obama.  taxing the rich is not going to get us there, the obama approach, and we all know it.  ending deductions, cutting rates and a flatter system is a reasonable approach.  i hope we move that direction.

as to hucko, rushmo and becko, i wouldn’t waste my time listening to them.  they make as much sense as some of those loons on msnbc.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2012 03:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  796
Joined  2012-10-10

I agree that “we can’t continue along this line” or the Country is in even deeper doo-doo.  So much could be accomplished if partisan politics were put aside and Congress would work as ONE to accomplish the things required to implement a fairer tax.  As it sits right now, neither political party is willing to cross the aisle and work with the other.

Where I disagree with you is that Rmoney is the person who can “fix” the economy… to fix the tax system.  Rmoney has no idea how a common person lives.  Rmoney has never stepped foot in a WalMart or a grocery store.  He’s never purchase a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk.  He’s spent lots of time worrying about tax shelters, never needing to worry about where the next meal will come from.  Can he… will he surround himself with middle class folk who have met the difficult challenges of being unemployed or working for minimum wage?  If he did, would he listen to them?  I don’t believe so.

If the recent polls are correct, we may have the opportunity to find out just how much Rmoney is tuned into the trials of those who have to work for a living.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2012 03:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

being in the venture capital business, i would venture to say that he’s been around lots of people on the margin.  having done a lot of m&a work myself, the way one understands the business is to get into the rank&file; - understandings and methodologies.  my bet is that he has a far better understanding of what makes america tick than the opposition ads portray.  that’s why i believe he’s uniquely qualified to apply the fixes needed to the american economy.  he’s done it already on a micro scale.  whether he’s been to walmart or not, i couldn’t say.  but i have.

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney‘s suggestion for capping itemized deductions at $25,000 would generate about $1.3 trillion in additional revenue over 10 years, according to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center.

Mr. Romney has been heavily pushing the idea in the final weeks of the campaign, a strategy that helps blunt Democratic charges that his plan to cut individual tax rates by 20% would benefit the wealthy. Deductions are taken primarily by higher earners, with the biggest deductions going to the people in the top tax brackets.

  wsj

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2012 10:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2011-07-27

A new Tax Policy Center study reveals that Romney’s “plan” falls way short of being revenue neutral as he and his VP nominee say it is:
“Capping itemized deductions available to taxpayers at $17,000 — which Romney has mentioned as one possible way to make his plan revenue-neutral — would raise just $1.7 trillion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center. TPC averred that his lack of specifics in other areas makes its analysis imperfect.

But based on the details he has offered, the deduction cap idea would leave a $3.3 trillion shortfall in the budget if he follows through on a promise to reduce income tax rates 20 percent below Bush-era levels, cut corporate taxes, and repeal the estate tax, Alternative Minimum Tax and taxes in the Affordable Care Act. TPC assumes optimistically, for the purposes of its analysis, that the reforms would create the same amount of economic growth as one of Romney’s top advisers forecasts.

“It’s safe to conclude that Romney would have to do a lot more than just cap deductions to make his plan revenue neutral,” TPC senior fellow Roberton Williams, the author of the report, told TPM.

Romney isn’t wedded to the idea. He hasn’t officially added it to his platform, and has also floated raising the number to $25,000 and $50,000. The former would raise $1.3 trillion, the latter $760 billion, leaving even bigger deficits and magnifying the challenge of making his plan revenue neutral without raising taxes on middle income earners. Eliminating all itemized deductions still won’t raise $5 trillion, TPC found.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2012 10:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

these studies depend on assumptions.  others will say his tax plan is neutral.  pick which one fits your politics.  the reality is the same.  romney has a plan.  obama does too, tax the rich.  but that one is pretty much worthless at solving the debt issues.  fix the tax code.  that’s the challenge.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2012 11:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2011-07-27

All studies are based on assumptions.  Romney’s plan is based on assumptions.  Here’s what good old conservative Ben Stein says.
“These days, it seems you don’t have to win Ben Stein’s money. You can just tax it.  The actor, author and generally conservative-minded brainiac appeared on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” Thursday and said that to avoid handing a “bankrupt America” on to younger generations, the country needs to raise taxes on millionaires.  “I hate to say this on Fox—I hope I’ll be allowed to leave here alive—but I don’t think there is any way we can cut spending enough to make a meaningful difference,” said Stein. “Taxes are too low.”  He added that the economy would still be able to grow with higher tax rates as it did in the years following World War II.  Stein’s comments are somewhat of an about-face. In 2010, he criticized Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush-era tax cuts on those making more than $250,000. That has since changed. Last year, Stein has supported raising taxes in order to reduce the deficit.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2012 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

ben is a smart fellow.  that’s exactly my point.  cutting spending is a piece but not a solution.  the tax code itself must be fixed.  and romney, as a republican, is best positioned to do that, as nixon was at ending the vietnam war and opening the door to china trade.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2012 11:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2011-07-27

You missed the point…Ben said raise taxes and cut spending.  Romney says cut taxes.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2012 11:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2011-07-27

Enough of this debunked myth of cutting taxes to fix the economy.  That’s been going on since Reagan and was the grand experiment of the W presidency.  It failed miserably.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2012 12:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

no, you miss the point.  if you cut deductions, which most often apply to high income earners, you raise their taxes if the code stays the same, by definition.  it takes both a code change in deductions and bracketing to help fix the deficit problem.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2012 12:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2011-07-27

No, you missed Stein’s point…he said tax rates need to be raised.  Try reading the whole quote.  And Romney is planning not to leave the rates alone.  He plans to lower them.  At least that’s what he says.

From above: “Taxes are too low.”  He added that the economy would still be able to grow with higher tax rates as it did in the years following World War II.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2012 01:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

i believe the need is to raise revenue in balancing the budget.  if it rest solely on raising tax rates, the economy will absolutely tank.  that’s my view.  the revenue approach needs to be balanced.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2012 02:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2011-07-27

Obviously that’s your opinion (view).  There is great deal of evidence and economic thinking quite to the contrary.  Just look at the contrast between the Clinton and George W. years.  The economy will tank if spending (consumption) tanks.  That’s how capitalism works.  If no one is buying, everything goes to pot.  I am not suggesting raising more tax revenue from those who already spend nearly everything they make (what used to be the middle class) by “broadening the base” as Romney/Ryan do.  The only people who can afford a tax increase are those in the top 3% who have income to spare.  They sure aren’t using their Bush tax cuts to create jobs.  The poor and middle class (maybe the same thing) can’t afford it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2012 02:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  796
Joined  2012-10-10

Bob, I take exception to your premise that capping deductions will have a greater effect on the wealthy.  Cap deductions and the middle class could well lose some of their medical deductions, charitable deductions, home interest deduction, etc.  The wealthy are living off salaries from business or investment.  Most of their “deductions” are taken by the business they own/run. 
A local, extremely well to do businessman has been handed tens of millions in eco-devo dollars.  He owns a private plane that is used to fly local sports commentators to football games, etc.  That plane, fuel, pilot, etc. are charged off against the business we taxpayers subsidize… not taken against the business owner’s personal income tax liablity.  Many of the Lexus, Lincoln, Caddy drivers are driving “company cars”.  Those autos are depreciated out against the business.  Medical costs are covered through self-insurance “pots” held in the business, so there are no personal deductions for those expenses. 

To have any chance of being revenue neutral, Rmoney’s plan would need to do something about ALL deductions… including those taken by large corporations as perks for the high paid executives.  The person who sells Romney his Caddilacs or the person who maintains Romney’s “auto elevator” in his California vacation home or the person who catches the lobster Romney’s family eats on a regular basis all need the current deductions.  If they lose them… and Romney’s type can continue to bleed the system via their businesses continuing to take deductions, this will be a one-sided affair.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2012 02:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

if, for example, deductions are capped at $50k, and i have another $100k of deductions presently, then i will be taxed on the latter. it clearly affects the wealthy most.  where the cap is set is part of the discussion, obviously.  one would assume with a democratic party senate, romney will have a higher cap than if it was a republican congress.  that’s probably your next point, so i thought i get it out ahead of time. i believe that’s why he is not giving specifics, as to not trap himself should he become president.  but the idea is solid and long, long overdue.  why the hell should millionaires get deductions on their summer and winter vacation home mortgage interest? of course, the realtors and builders will go nutso.

Profile
 
 
   
 1 2 > 
1 of 2
 

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | The Manhattan Mercury, 318 North 5th Street, Manhattan, Kansas, 66502

Reproduction of any kind is prohibited without written consent.