October 25, 201213 yr AMT isn't scaled to keep up with inflation, so you are right that it is now affecting a lot of middle class families. AMT was initially enacted in 1969 to get at 155 high-income taxpayers who filed returns with no tax due. Big deal. Most of them owned nothing but tax-exempt munis. If you're gonna exempt muni-bond interest, then exempt it. The AMT is the dumbest thing we've ever done -- a pure class-warfare thing. My preference is to throw the entire IRC out and start over with a 10 to 15% flat tax and a large personal exemption, say 20K per head. Since that's not likely to happen, Romney's plan is the next best thing available. He wants to cut marginal tax rates 20% and cap TOTAL deductions. It reduces marginal rates, which increases incentives for work, saving, investment and risk-taking, and thus growth. It avoids the realtors and other lobbyists (against eliminating the deduction for state income taxes, for instance) whining about their particular deductions. Any taxpayer can use whichever deductions they wish, subject to an overall cap. A cap of 100K wouldn't affect anyone in the "middle class," they would get a net tax cut. Romney himself would take a big time hit on his own idea, his 3 mill charitable contribution deduction for '11 would be capped at, say, 100K and he would pay 28% of 2.9 mill instead of zero on that 3 mill. (I'm using round numbers for illustration only.) The top rate goes from 35% to 28%, but more income gets taxed. Revenue neutral, but growth positive. Which results in increased growth and tax revenue. The "rich" wind up paying even more than they do now -- the top 10% already pay 70% of all income taxes today. That's something that can actually be passed into law, because no sacred cow deductions get thrown out -- mortgage interest, state income taxes, state sales taxes, charitable contributions, medical expenses, etc.
October 25, 201213 yr AMT isn't scaled to keep up with inflation, so you are right that it is now affecting a lot of middle class families. AMT was initially enacted in 1969 to get at 155 high-income taxpayers who filed returns with no tax due. Big deal. Most of them owned nothing but tax-exempt munis. If you're gonna exempt muni-bond interest, then exempt it. The AMT is the dumbest thing we've ever done -- a pure class-warfare thing. My preference is to throw the entire IRC out and start over with a 10 to 15% flat tax and a large personal exemption, say 20K per head. Since that's not likely to happen, Romney's plan is the next best thing available. He wants to cut marginal tax rates 20% and cap TOTAL deductions. It reduces marginal rates, which increases incentives for work, saving, investment and risk-taking, and thus growth. It avoids the realtors and other lobbyists (against eliminating the deduction for state income taxes, for instance) whining about their particular deductions. Any taxpayer can use whichever deductions they wish, subject to an overall cap. A cap of 100K wouldn't affect anyone in the "middle class," they would get a net tax cut. Romney himself would take a big time hit on his own idea, his 3 mill charitable contribution deduction for '11 would be capped at, say, 100K and he would pay 28% of 2.9 mill instead of zero on that 3 mill. (I'm using round numbers for illustration only.) The top rate goes from 35% to 28%, but more income gets taxed. Revenue neutral, but growth positive. Which results in increased growth and tax revenue. The "rich" wind up paying even more than they do now -- the top 10% already pay 70% of all income taxes today. That's something that can actually be passed into law, because no sacred cow deductions get thrown out -- mortgage interest, state income taxes, state sales taxes, charitable contributions, medical expenses, etc. Politics? Class Battles? Math? Taxes? f*** this. [img.]insertSEINFELDgif[./img]
October 26, 201213 yr Politics? Class Battles? Math? Taxes? f*** this. OK. I guess we'll have to do without your contribution to the tax debate.
October 26, 201213 yr Rather than go back and forth with you guys, Ill just point out a great point that Mark Cuban made: The Republican candidate is trying to convince us all that it is going to be easy to convince both sides of Congress to come together and figure out at what number they can cap individual tax deductions. He is also saying that he is going to reduce corporate taxes AFTER he is able to get consensus on which corporate deductions to eliminate. That is not going to happen unless we outlaw corporate lobbyists. Everyone is for eliminating all deductions other than their own. The idea that everyone will happily agree to compromise is not consistent with the actions of this Congress and not going to happen. It's not going to happen. He is not going to be able to get anyone to agree on which deductions to eliminate. Not only that, he believes that the net result of these improbable actions is that tax revenues from corporations will go up. Do we really believe that corporations will gladly accept an increase in their net tax bill? I don't think so. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-cuban/romney-election-2012_b_2020584.html Throw in the fact that dems are likely going to retain the Senate. The irony of this is that, to avoid the fiscal cliff, Romney will probably have to accept increases taxes on the wealthy by letting Bush tax cuts on them expire, while extending middle class tax cuts. Nor would he be able to repeal Obamacare. Basically accept Obama's plan.
October 27, 201213 yr great point that Mark Cuban made Cuban doesn't know what he's talking about. 1) It will be extremely easy to agree on a deduction cap. It's currently unlimited. Somewhere between zero and unlimited are many numbers that could attract overwhelming support. But, overwhelming support, while nice to have isn't needed. It's not the slightest issue in the House and only 50 are actually needed in the Senate to do tax reform as part of budget reconciliation, with the VP casting the 51st vote. The Bush cuts were initially enacted as part of budget reconciliation. 2) Romney's proposal is to cut the corporate rate from 35 to 25%. Period. Only a further cut below 25% would involve broadening the base. He would also go to a territorial system from the current worldwide system, which would get rid of the problem of U.S. firms not repatriating foreign profits because they don't want to take the U.S. tax hit (35% less foreign tax already paid.) Do we really believe that corporations will gladly accept an increase in their net tax bill? Lower rates result in higher revenue, especially over time as taxpayers no longer have as great an incentive to structure things so as to avoid taxes. See individual income tax revenue under Coolidge, Kennedy/LBJ, Reagan, Bush, revenue following every single capital gains tax cut ever made, and corporate income tax revenue following the cut from 50% to 35%. dems are likely going to retain the Senate. Says you. But, it doesn't really matter, there are always a handful of conservative Democrats who will join the Republicans on tax issues. And 60 votes aren't necessary, as I already mentioned. 50 Senators plus the VP can get the job done.
October 27, 201213 yr You can have half of a 12" pizza, or you have a third of a 18" pizza. Which is more food?
October 28, 201213 yr You can have half of a 12" pizza, or you have a third of a 18" pizza. Which is more food? Math. Taxes. Politics. I was out. Bring in food, and I'm back!!! Which is more food? A 12 inch or 1/3 of 18 inch pizza? Why choose? Eat them both and make the middle class pick up the bill.
October 28, 201213 yr You can have half of a 12" pizza, or you have a third of a 18" pizza. Which is more food? Dunno if serious or just stupid... A third of an 18" pizza is significantly more food than a half of a 12" pizza. So one might look at the numbers here and deduce that 12 by 2 = 6 and 18 by 3 = 6 therefore the two are the same... Maybe this is a good example as to why people think they're right when they're really not.
October 28, 201213 yr I don't know! I looked two or three posts back and I didn't get any humor in it so I assume so...
October 28, 201213 yr The only political issue I care about is the on going continuity of this thread and all the nonsense. This is great! The OP needs to come back and start talking crap again.
October 29, 201213 yr You can have half of a 12" pizza, or you have a third of a 18" pizza. Which is more food? Dunno if serious or just stupid... A third of an 18" pizza is significantly more food than a half of a 12" pizza. That is the point. You are better off having a third of a larger pizza. It is how the Laffer Curve works. Once can increase revenue by lower rates and then taxing the larger economy.
October 29, 201213 yr You can have half of a 12" pizza, or you have a third of a 18" pizza. Which is more food? Dunno if serious or just stupid... A third of an 18" pizza is significantly more food than a half of a 12" pizza. That is the point. You are better off having a third of a larger pizza. It is how the Laffer Curve works. Once can increase revenue by lower rates and then taxing the larger economy. But the Laffer Curve has a peak. It's not automatic that cutting rates always raises revenue. At some point it cuts revenue (and vice versa). Blanket statements that cutting rates leads to more revenue are a myth.
October 29, 201213 yr But the Laffer Curve has a peak. It's not automatic that cutting rates always raises revenue. At some point it cuts revenue (and vice versa). Blanket statements that cutting rates leads to more revenue are a myth. Hence, my use of the word "can."
October 29, 201213 yr You can have half of a 12" pizza, or you have a third of a 18" pizza. Which is more food? Dunno if serious or just stupid... A third of an 18" pizza is significantly more food than a half of a 12" pizza. That is the point. You are better off having a third of a larger pizza. It is how the Laffer Curve works. Once can increase revenue by lower rates and then taxing the larger economy. Okay, glad you actually meant something by that! In the future... your post really gave off the impression of a "tomayto tomahto" comparison.
October 29, 201213 yr You can have half of a 12" pizza, or you have a third of a 18" pizza. Which is more food? Dunno if serious or just stupid... A third of an 18" pizza is significantly more food than a half of a 12" pizza. That is the point. You are better off having a third of a larger pizza. It is how the Laffer Curve works. Once can increase revenue by lower rates and then taxing the larger economy. Okay, glad you actually meant something by that! In the future... your post really gave off the impression of a "tomayto tomahto" comparison. Did anyone else order pizza? I really F***'d up my XL Pepperoni from Steve's Pizza last night.
October 29, 201213 yr Both solid choices. I can't remember if Steve's charged me for a refill or the cashier was just f***ing with me when he said that.
October 29, 201213 yr Both solid choices. I can't remember if Steve's charged me for a refill or the cashier was just f***ing with me when he said that. Probably f***ing with you, the one I go to has the soda fountains off to the side.
October 29, 201213 yr I also ate pizza last night. Pasquale's. Where's Pasquale's? Coral Springs. Good pizza, but prepare for de sh*ts.
October 29, 201213 yr I also ate pizza last night. Pasquale's. Where's Pasquale's? Coral Springs. Good pizza, but prepare for de sh*ts. God damn, last thing I need. I woke up this morning thinking I killed someone, it turned out I killed the neighbors cat from three houses down.
October 30, 201213 yr If it's a team sport, why ain't the Republicans being good teammates and allowing our current POTUS to get anything done? WHAT??? There were two years that he could have done anything he pleased, and all he did was pass a healthcare bill that is opposed by over 70% of Americans.
October 30, 201213 yr I really don't think it is that systematic. I can't even think of an example of the Democratic party exploiting a Libertarian candidate to steal Republican votes. It is that systematic. I don't have the link with me but third party candidates receive funding from the party using them. Sure it is, but that doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do. Sure there might be some exploitation as well. Luckily for me, social issues are more important at this point in my life. So I'd be happy with Obama winning and knowing I voted for Gary Johnson. That might change down the line once I'm out of school, paying taxes, etc. but I hope some 12 years down the line this country can pull its head out of its ass and make an effort to split from the two party system. Doesn't look hopeful, but the slim ray of light that is Ron Paul is making a big difference on the youth I guess. see how much your social issues matter when we go bankrupt...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.