Romney Tax Plan on Table. Debt Collapses Table.

JD I'm not trying to argue with you nor was I. You are a smart guy you know what your talking about I'm just simply pointing out that a less intense tax structure could make for easier understanding and possibly a better code. Most are far too complicated and that's why discussions like this that are meaningless and no real side knows what's going on happens.
 
It's not really a matter of complicated or not complicated. It's a matter of what the tax system does. Maybe a less complicated code would work better - but not simply because of less complexity, it depends what actual changes you make.

Either way none of that is at stake in this election. Right now the problem you've got is this. Assume you think the national debt is a priority and should be reduced as quickly as practically possible to something like, say, 5 trillion instead of 16+ where it currently is.

Every year you have a budget deficit of 1 trillion dollars, give or take. So, you need to engage in spending cuts and revenue enhancements that, in combination, add up to 1 trillion dollars.

First of all, Obama won't do this. If re-elected, it's not unlikely that the annual deficit will end up looking more or less the same for the next 4 years and he'll leave office with 20 trillion in national debt.

However, Romney won't do this either - or if he will, no one has any Earthly idea how. He intends to increase defense spending by a significant amount, and reduce tax rates in a number of areas. In other words, increase spending and reduce revenue. On its face, this would suggest that his policies will result in an even HIGHER annual deficit than currently exists and an even HIGHER debt in 4 years than 20 trillion. This shouldn't really surprise anyone because significant increases to the national debt have been the result of every republican administration for the past 30 years.

But Romney says he wants this all to be more or less revenue neutral. How? Well, by eliminating certain spending and eliminating certain exemptions and deductions. But which ones? He refuses to tell anyone. So far, we know of two things. First, he will end subsidies to PBS. Whether or not you think PBS is a good thing to cut, that is at best about $400 million annually. Cool, but we're looking for 1 trillion here, man. 400 million isn't even a drop in the bucket.

The second thing we know is that he will repeal Obamacare (the ACA). So that should save some money, right? Well, actually, no. The CBO reviewed the actual budget impact of legislation repealing Obamacare and calculated that it would actually add 109 billion to the deficit over 10 years. So this is actually going in the OPPOSITE direction of where Romney needs to go. It makes the deficit WORSE.

This is the problem. If the Romney campaign could come up with a list of bullet points that would a) generate more revenue (besides "we're going to improve the economy because we say so so everyone will make more money and the government will tax it" wishful thinking), and b) reduce spending, that would be great. They need to add up to at least $700 billion from where we are now - at least that puts you in striking distance of a balanced budget.

Here's the thing though. Imagine he did it and balanced that budget, found all $1 trillion dollars - great success. Except the debt is still 16 trillion. You not only have to find that trillion bucks of net revenue, you then have to find 16 trillion more somewhere - probably over a number of years. I.e. even if you're in a $500 billion surplus position, and you use every penny of that surplus to pay down the national debt, it would take you more than 3 decades to get rid of it.

So on fiscal issues you're fucked no matter who you vote for, is kind of what I'm saying.
 
It was more of a general statement. I really wish that half of the money spent on ads had to go into an escrow fund for non-partisan ads that actually explain things to people. Half the country has no idea what the difference is between the deficit and the national debt. As if cutting spending on some social programs they don't like is going to help pay down the debt in some meaningful way. No, man, I'm sorry, the government takes in, in total, about 2.5 trillion in tax revenue every year, and the debt is over 6 times that amount.

Right now it's not even possible to avoid going into further debt because there's been a structural deficit since ~2003. The only realistic way to stop the bleeding is to not renew the 2002 tax cuts when they expire, end the war and draw down military spending to about 2000 levels, and probably make a bunch of cuts to medicare and social security. Implementing a national sales tax would go a long way as well. Actually campaign on those things, though? Fuck that, you wouldn't be able to get elected as a dog catcher.

And that's just what it'd take to make a dent, really painfully slowly. If you wanted to take an aggressive run at reducing the national debt I get the feeling you'd end up with another Great Depression, possibly worse. There is no way to simply solve this.
 
He is a smart educated guy that has real ideas, real facts and real numbers. I always listen to JD, he knows what he's talking about.
 
Well lets hope Romney can change his idea on military spending.. That's probably our only hope I guess. Policing the world is raping this country. Why can't we just let these fuckin middle eastern people kill each other like they have been for a thousand years.
 
well if the god damned allied forces didn't give israel to the jews we wouldn't be having this problem but NOOOOOO they gotta play the whole 'we were genocided' card

....fuckers
 
Who said I was defending him? I'm just saying that people need to stop acting like they know what he's gonna do when he hasn't even told anyone what his plan is. Yet everyone seems to be fucking experts on this "plan" that hasn't even been released.

But I'm sure you know for a fact that his plan is to ruin America... Get a fucking clue
 
Dude I am surprised you didn't link him 15 news articles to help win your argument! You finally are learning how to have a conversation!
 
well if his plan would help america he would have released it to us by now. I'm sure over the last 2 years(maybe more) of him knowing he would run for president, he hasn't take time to have any tax plan what so ever. open your eyes and try some critical thinking.
 
lol so he goes on national tv, tells lies to the entire world about his tax plan, and you condone it because he hasn't had the time to tell us what his plan is? Brilliant.
 
Haha you have some nerve to imply that you yourself are a "respectable adult", I think you should go back and read the majority of your posts. They are just filled with spectacular examples of maturity and respect.

Oh and I think you respect him only because he has a green name.
 
This.

This thread is filled with a lot of ”no one knows what his plan is” AND ”his plan is impossible and would cost the country too much money”..... Just so everyone knows you can definitely not argue both of these points at the same time
 
Although J.D.'s post is great and his numbers are accurate, he's missing the point. Either that or he's just trying to talk in Phaded's terms, which miss the point. The deficit is not the greatest concern right now, in fact if anything it needs to be larger. High unemployment and virtually no growth are the problems. Interest rates on the national debt are near historic lows, investors are obviously not all that concerned about our debt levels. The federal government can borrow money PRACTICALLY FOR FREE right now (in fact some inflation protected bonds actually have negative interest rates in recent years. In other words, people expecting inflation to be so low in the next few years they are willing to pay the government to borrow their money). There's no reason we shouldn't be taking advantage of that fact and using that money to put people to work. That would both boost demand in the economy (leading to higher growth) and we could drastically improve our long term economic prospects by funding infrastructure, scientific research, and improving education.

The long term debt is another story, and if you ended the wars, cut the military budget, returned tax rates to a more historically normal number, and instituted a single payer health care system like Canada's, our long term debt turns into a long term surplus.

 
im going to say it again. well if his plan would help america he would have released it to us by now. I'm sure over the last 2 years(maybe more) of him knowing he would run for president, he hasn't take time to have any tax plan what so ever. open your eyes and try some critical thinking.
 
Well, yes you can, because there is a small amount of information about what his plan is - i.e. he has defined the across-the-board tax cuts he intends to implement, he has said that he would cut CGains tax, has said he would not increase levies on investment income, has said he would eliminate some deductions and exemptions and that as a result of that his plan will be revenue-neutral, AND has claimed that it will not result in increased taxes on the middle class.

Now, we don't know what his plan is - because we don't know what deductions or exemptions he plans to cut and we don't know the specifics of much of the rest of it. However, even if you increase every deduction and exemption for higher income brackets, if you reduce capital gains rates without increasing taxes on investment income, it is impossible to get to revenue neutral without increasing taxes on the middle class / lower income people. In other words, the higher-income tax credits he is proposing will cost more than all of the deductions and exemptions he could cut could possibly save.
 
Well actually you sort of can, because all though he hasn't released his plan, he has released enough of the details (increasing military spending, cutting tax rates by 20% across the board) for us to draw conclusions about what he would have to do to make it revenue neutral, as he claims it will be, or if not, how much it would increase the deficit (which like I said is not necessarily a bad thing, but we do know that tax cuts are one of the least effective ways to stimulate an economy while increasing the deficit).

So you actually can criticize him for not releasing a full plan and at the same time point out that what he has released will increase the deficit (or significantly raise taxes on the poor/middle class, and even then probably not close the gap). It's all rather syllogistic.
 
This is all reasonable, which is why my post states at the beginning that it assumes you think the national debt is a serious problem that needs to be addressed as soon as practically possible. Personally, I think the U.S. needs to immediately - next year - put itself into a structural surplus position so that at the very least the country doesn't sink any further into the red, and can start the long road back to recovery. Interest rates will not stay as they are forever, and we're talking long-term here on the paydown.

As for putting people to work, that will happen regardless of who is elected - CBO projects 12 million new private sector jobs in the next four years, no matter what the outcome of the election is. And I'm not sure borrowing money to artifically create jobs is a winner for me. Every time someone proposes one of these "borrow X billion dollars, create 5 million jobs" I immediately think of the guy going "thanks for the 5 million jobs, I'm working three of them and I still can't make my rent payments".
 
We need to raise the minimum wage, expand the social safety net, increase the unionized workforce, and adjust our trade and immigration policies to increase wages. There's a lot of problems with the US, no one solution will solve them all.

Also, simply creating more jobs will drive up wages. It will increase demand for workers and drive up price (wages).
 
Also, I totally agree that neither Romney or Obama are proposing sufficient solutions to these problems. I live in california so I'm voting for Rocky Anderson, but if I lived in a swing state I'd vote for Obama. With him it will at least only stay as bad as it is, with Romney it will probably get worse.

It's depressing that our politics put us in that position. It's also incredibly important to vote all the way down the ballot. The house and senate are at least as important as the president and maybe more.
 
K there's like 5 things there you could have a 5 hour argument on each of them. Way too controversial to deal with in a thread like this. So to calm things down I'm just going to sit here with my "let the Bush tax cuts expire and implement a 3.5% national sales tax on goods and services" proposal. That shouldn't cause anybody any issues, right? Everyone's cool with that?
 
Fully agree. Downticket is probably MORE important right now, which is why if I was voting in your election I would have a hard time justifying any vote for anyone from a party whose members played chicken with the debt ceiling. That was unbelievably irresponsible and should immediately result in all concerned being unceremoniously run out of town on a rail in disgrace. People like to be excessively melodramatic about policies they disagree with but that's actual, legitimate world-ending shit right there.

Obviously, as a crumpet-eating monocle-wearing member of the 1%, I'd be kind of torn about it.
 
I'd support a financial transaction tax before a national sales tax. Sales taxes are regressive because the poorest people spend the highest percentage of their income, and a financial transaction tax would both raise a lot of money and help disincentivize risky financial speculation. For most people who do normal investing it wouldn't be a noticeable difference, it would only really hit people who do large volume high speed trading.

Totally agree on the Bush/Obama tax cuts (now that he extended him they're his too now IMO).
 
Absolutely agree. In any race that's actually contested I will vote against the GOP until we have an instant runoff system (which we never will because the parties won't allow it).
 
I been on this site for over 10 years I don't give a fuck about a mod. I have no reason to be scared of JD we have had disagreements and he has never banned me..
 
The problem with a financial services tax is that it actually affects risk profiles - i.e. it will actually discourage behaviour we don't want to discourage. When undertaking those kinds of transactions every minute detail is analyzed.

The thing about the sales tax is yes, it's regressive, but it's a super effective revenue raising tool. It would significantly add to government coffers, and because it's a distinct tax you can even target it. Some have proposed making it a targeted tax where 100% of NST revenue goes to fund medicate so it doesn't go broke for another X years. I don't like that, I'd rather say 100% goes to pay down the debt or something. Obviously that doesn't matter but it makes it a bit easier to sell to the people who grumble about it... and people will absolutely grumble about it. But they're still going to buy stuff, the extra 3.5 cents on the dollar isn't suddenly going to mean I don't need a new microwave. It's a lot like gas prices - people bitch and moan when the price goes up 10 cents but that doesn't stop them from driving.
 
Just your views and ideologies on politics/life can be pretty fucking contradicting at times. Pretty jokes honestly.

lol respect gets respect haha.
 
Anything that would actually help the american people right now would most likely not have a hope or a prayer in an election. #garyjohnson I am personally a believer in reagonomics.

The four pillars or reagan economics are as follows.

1. Reduce the growth of government spending (thats across the board, reduce the amount of handouts, cut some things that may even seem crucial, because in reality they really arent)

2. lower income tax and federal gains tax (based off of the laffer curve. Look it up children, lower tax rates can actually increase revenue up to a certain point? Crazy shit)

3. Reduce government regulation of the economy (not eliminate, reduce. Two different things. As the economy grows sometimes more regulation is necessary, sometimes it is not)

4. Control the money supply to handle inflation

As so many people have said so far, we do not have a simple economic system. AND there is not one solution. In times of trouble reduce tax rates especially among peoplewho employ others so they are inclined to grow. that is the period we are currently in. I would love it if my friends and I had to pay a lower tax rate right now, and my employer paid a hefty tax rate. But wait, one day comes along, and my boss cant afford me anymore. Fuck, im out of a job like so many other americans. Jeeze I wish my old boss had more money so he could employ me. By cutting his rates and therefor cutting his costs of doing business, he may be able to hire more workers who will themselves also be able to pay taxes.

there you see the money multiplier effect in a way, my boss has more money which means my coworkers and i will also have more money, it gets spread around. I have more money, sweet, ima buy stuff. More money moves around, the system improves. The economy relies on spending, at least an economy that allows us to decide where and what we do with what we earn.

That being said when times are really good, you increase tax rates as reagan did many times in his career (he actually increased taxes more times than he raised them)

I would vote for a reagan style politician. Romney is actually considerably more liberal than reagan. And a little too liberal for me actually, but he shall most likely still receive my vote in the upcoming election.

I apologize for any typos or grammar mistakes, I am on a tablet, and it makes editing hard.
 
^ if any of that theory worked in reality we would expect to see employers increasing the hours of their workers to keep up with demand while avoiding hiring new workers. We see the opposite, work hours have declined since pre-recession times even though most companies have less workers.

So in essence your theory doesn't match reality.
 
The financial transaction tax would discourage the kind if behavior we DON'T want though. Only highly risky speculative trading would be hit a noticeable amount, which is exactly what we don't need more of. Since trading costs have fallen so dramatically in the tech era, the tax would only raise costs back to about 1990 levels. People could still make investments in 1990 and the financial industry did fine.

As for using the NST to fund Medicare, it's not a bad idea, but if we had a single payer for all system we wouldn't need it. Medicare costs are rising, but only because medical costs in general are rising in the US. In fact Medicare costs are rising slower than private insurance costs. If we want to take advantage of those savings we need Medicare for all.
 
this whole thread is hilarious! You guys are at the same time saying the tax code is way to complicated for any of us to understand and saying you cant just simplify it, but at the same time wondering why romney hasnt released his tax plan yet. Maybe it is because like you guys have spent the last two pages trying to say is because it is really complicated and it isnt as simple as simply i will cut this and raise that which will cause this. It would be a several hour long speech which very few people would even understand half of, and in turn cause people to say that is stupid and wont work because i didn't understand it.



 
So you're saying that the reason he refuses to release it is that people would actually discuss it in detail?

That's fucking stupid, GTFO.
 
no......did you even read what i said?

what i said is that he hasnt bothered to relase it yet because "it isnt as simple as i will cut this and raise that which will cause this. It would be a several hour long speech which very few people would even understand half of, and in turn cause people to say that is stupid and wont work because i didn't understand it."

Please show at what point i said that he refuses to release it because people would discuss it, because what i see is me saying that he wont be bothered to release it because a minuscule amount of the population would understand it and the rest would say its an awful plan because it is far to complicated and i didnt even know what half the words he said meant.

Seriously for a scientist you aren't very smart...

 
Right here;

"wondering why romney hasnt released his tax plan yet. Maybe it is because like you guys have spent the last two pages trying to say is because it is really complicated"

We've all been happily discussing budget details, if you just want to come in here and give excuses for why he hasn't released details of his plan, just leave. "It's complicated" is a fucking stupid reason for not releasing a tax plan. It's still gonna be complicated when he's trying to pass it, why not just get it out there now?
 
.....and if you finished the quote the reason isnt to stop people from discussing it rather because it would takes hours to explain and still a very small amount of people would understand it and the rest would be left completely confused.but all in all any well educated person in this topic would know that national debt is nowhere near as serious as the media makes it sound.
 
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about so please leave. Yes, the debt is $16 trillion dollars. The total assets of the US economy are about $188 trillion and the GDP is $15.1 trillion. Those are all really big scary numbers if you just count zeros and don't think, but when you look at them in relationship to each other and also consider the fact that interest rates are damn near zero, it's under 3% on 30 year bonds, it's NEGATIVE 1.16% on a 10 year inflation adjusted bond, this all becomes a hell of a lot less scary. The thing that's really scary is the fact that there are 15 million people out of work.
 
i asked you a question, no reason to be an asshole. I mean, you said its not a big deal so i dont see why you care so much. I didnt post anythin that has to do with the thread, just asked a question. tell me again how i dont know what im talking about because i clearly stated my beliefs on the topic. Rude
 
I care about tax policy and budgets because they're really important. If you don't think tax policy and budgets matter, why'd you come into a thread that's about budgets?
 
I inferred it from the fact that you came in here and grabbed one of the least significant sentences in the whole thread then acted like a flippant asshole. If you think it's important then put some suggestions on the table for how to help make a better budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top