For some time, Mitt Romney has been promising to reduce income tax rates and then pay for these cuts by closing loopholes. But he's never specified which loopholes he'd close and now we know why. A new analysis from the Brookings Institution (and first reported by Lori Montgomery in the Washington Post) suggests that, in order to lower tax rates without increasing the deficit, Romney would have to close loopholes that benefit middle-class Americans as well as the wealthy. The end result, if I'm reading the report correctly, would be lower taxes for the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans but higher taxes on everybody else. ...
I'm sure the Romney campaign will dispute the conclusion, but this isn't the work of political hacks. The analysis comes from William Gale, who is director of the Brookings-Urban Tax Policy Center, and Adam Looney, who is policy director of the Hamilton Project. Their conclusion is consistent with what other independent experts have speculated for some time and, strikingly, it holds true even when they make assumptions favorable to Romney:
even when we assume that tax breaks – like the charitable deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the exclusion for health insurance – are completely eliminated for higher-income households first, and only then reduced as necessary for other households to achieve overall revenue-neutrality– the net effect of the plan would be a tax cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income households.
In addition, we also assess whether these results hold if we assume that revenue reductions are partially offset by higher economic growth. Although reasonable models would show that these tax changes would have little effect on growth, we show that even with implausibly large growth effects, revenue neutrality would still require large reductions in tax expenditures and would likely result in a net tax increase for lower- and middle-income households and tax cuts for high-income households.
Keep in mind that, even as Romney is proposing to taxes on most Americans, he is proposing to cut programs on which most Americans rely. His proposal to cap federal spending at 20 percent of gross domestic product, with a fifth of that set aside for defense spending, would inevitably require dramatic cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and other vital public services.
...
I want my representatives to do what I do spend less than they take in. I want them to make sure our country is safe and that our military is the strongest in the world. I would also want them to have a tax code that is fair for all, in other words everyone should pay taxes, those that do not pay should not get money given to them at the end of the year ( earn income credit).
It would also nice if our government quit strangling business through regulations that hinder growth. Also since we have enough of that poison (liquid gold) to supply our country let the oil producers drill everywhere possible in a environmentally friendly way. Besides this if they would just do away with about seventy five per cent of the agencies that have been created in the last 50 years we would again be a thriving country.
I want my representatives to do what I do spend less than they take in. I want them to make sure our country is safe and that our military is the strongest in the world. I would also want them to have a tax code that is fair for all, in other words everyone should pay taxes, those that do not pay should not get money given to them at the end of the year ( earn income credit).
It would also nice if our government quit strangling business through regulations that hinder growth. Also since we have enough of that poison (liquid gold) to supply our country let the oil producers drill everywhere possible in a environmentally friendly way. Besides this if they would just do away with about seventy five per cent of the agencies that have been created in the last 50 years we would again be a thriving country.
The liberals don't understand anything you just said.
Why not set a fixed percentage for everyone, and have no deductions?
Let's just not tax income up to the poverty level, and everyone pays the same percentage on money earned above that level.
Why not set a fixed percentage for everyone, and have no deductions?
Let's just not tax income up to the poverty level, and everyone pays the same percentage on money earned above that level.
To simple!! It would eliminate 95% of the IRS. Works for me though.
To simple!! It would eliminate 95% of the IRS. Works for me though.
it would also give the scumbags running for office one less scare tactic to use to garner votes come election time.
as far as the poll, with the two choices available, why not offer a third choice, let the gov't take all of our money & distribute it as they see fit. seems to fall in line with the bias of the other two....
Exactly, that might be asking too much of this administration though, they feel they have the right to rule by fiat.
That and a flat tax so everybody has an equal amount (by percentage anyway) of skin in the game. No exemptions either, the whole populace needs to be paying so they'll all pay attention to what our out of control bloated federal bureaucracy is up too. That would be a lib nightmare and bring out the axes.
If we froze spending at current levels, the budget would balance itself due to higher incoming revenue. Regulation and fear is keeping many with investments out of the markets. Government is not the solution it is the problem. You look and see posible cuts and guess that medicare is where they come from. You can raise taxes all you want, but the government always gets about the same about 18 to 19 percent on average. If you raise it, people will make less. Its human nature to not want to give something to someone else including the government. So how do you increase revenue. I will use cigarette taxes as an example.
New York and Chicago have raise the taxes on cigarettes so much that their revenue has dropped off significantly. Why? Its cheaper to buy them out of state or illegally. So instead of balancing budgets on the backs of the smokers, they cut revenue. If you raise capital gains, people invest differently as to not pay the taxes. Human nature effects taxes as much as fairness. What we need is to stop anti-capitalistic practices that are played by the right and the left. Subsidies for left or right favorites. Its not governments job to pick winners and losers.
If we froze spending at current levels, the budget would balance itself due to higher incoming revenue. Regulation and fear is keeping many with investments out of the markets. Government is not the solution it is the problem. You look and see posible cuts and guess that medicare is where they come from. You can raise taxes all you want, but the government always gets about the same about 18 to 19 percent on average. If you raise it, people will make less. Its human nature to not want to give something to someone else including the government. So how do you increase revenue. I will use cigarette taxes as an example.
New York and Chicago have raise the taxes on cigarettes so much that their revenue has dropped off significantly. Why? Its cheaper to buy them out of state or illegally. So instead of balancing budgets on the backs of the smokers, they cut revenue. If you raise capital gains, people invest differently as to not pay the taxes. Human nature effects taxes as much as fairness. What we need is to stop anti-capitalistic practices that are played by the right and the left. Subsidies for left or right favorites. Its not governments job to pick winners and losers.
Cut welfare.sent the illegals back to Mexico, Put the people on public assistance to work, make them earn that check, make all welfare recipiants take a drug test, all that fail don,t get a check.
I can hear some want to cut social security and medicare, The wokers that collect that have paid for that, and if the government had,nt spent it there would be enough to pay those getting it.
I want a national sales tax at 10% now, and limited to no more than 18% of the GDP at any given point in times of peace, and 20% in times of war.
Everyone pays taxes this way.
No more income tax for anyone.
No more capital gains taxes.
No more death taxes.
No corporate taxes.
Let the States decide if they want to tax on top of that figure, and if they want to have income taxes etc.
People can move as they see fit, from state to state, to get the tax laws they want, and States can revise their tax laws to either attract, or push away people and business.
With this system, the USA would overnight, become the #1 business location in the world. Zero corporate taxes, and low federal taxes, and NO IDIOT PROGRESSIVE TAX ON WEALTH.
That is important. This idea that if you make more, you should be taxed higher is POISON. It's un-american. It's wrong, and has always been wrong.
If you buy stuff, you should pay a Federal Tax on the new things you buy. Buy a new item at 10,000.00 and you pay 1,000.00 in Fed Tax. Simple for anyone to understand.
Buy a used item? You pay zero fed tax.
Guess what happens to the value of existing cars/homes/land etc? Yep, we need that right now folks, in a major way.
And companies that want to locate here, can do it now and compete on the global market since the taxes that keep them away now would be gone.
The funny part is, the IRS would cease to exist. And as noted by others, 75% of the federal government can go away as well, since it's not needed. (Don't fire them, but consolodate what you can, retire the rest over time, and end all public employee unions as part of the new tax law change.)
The very first thing I'd cut?
No more TSA. They are absolutely a waste. Let private firms/companies compete to provide the security just like they did prior to 911, and let's get Americans back to travel that is not a joke around the world. The current TSA workers would become border patrol, and moved into those jobs, or other shrinking federal programs/agencies.
Second agency I'd terminate is the EPA. They can be handled by the justice department. No more BATFE either, that's all part of HLS/Border patrol.
We have plenty of envrionmental laws, no need for a federal level agency. Let the States do this, and take any claims to the Justice Deparment if they need federal level courts.
Well you and Adjuster just go right on building those castles in the sky then, bmcgilvray, and leave reality, unappealing though it is, to those of us who can handle it.
Do you even know that the Republicans excluded Ron Paul from their convention?
No matter what you do in that voting booth this fall, one of those two "foolish non-choices," as you call them, is going to win, and only a fool can't discern the difference between them.
The current TSA workers would become border patrol, and moved into those jobs, or other shrinking federal programs/agencies.
I like your plan up to this point. I don't think that a TSA agent could pass the entrance exam to become a Border Patrol agent if you gave them the answers.
He cant because its BS. Freeloaders like him.crap, and freeloadersw who get their government checks are the ones not paying taxes and sucking the life out of this country.
Am I missing something ?
Linear Mode
