Skip to comments.So, is Romney going to cut upper-income taxes over and above the Bush tax cuts - or not?
Posted on 10/04/2012 7:01:03 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Romney certainly had a spendid debate performance, but the back-and-forth quibbling over Romney wanting 5 trillion in new tax cuts over and above the Bush tax cuts, then Romney saying no he doesn't support that, then Obama saying yes you do, then Romney "no I don't," etc, etc - it all still left me with the central question:
If Romney is elected president, will he cut taxes for upper-income earners over and above the Bush tax cuts.
Yes or no?
Romney can answer that and we can look back over his past statements on the matter - those during the GOP primaries and those after - because Romney taking the position Monday that he won't seek to deport those illegals under Obama's new rule has me wondering...
What say you?
Head start....Get rid of it....It's nothing but a babysitting program.
I think what I heard was yes, he will cut the top marginal rate, but will also close loopholes and certain deductions on the top group as well. He made a point that the top 3% is responsible for over 50% of small businesses in America, so they would need to have their rate reduced.
I think what he was trying to say is that the rich won’t be taxed less, meaning they’ll be paying the same amount of taxes, but that their rates will be lower, i.e. eliminating credits and deductions and lowering rates. Coming out even.
Yes. He wants to cut all tax rates commensurately.
BTW, those “Bush tax cuts” expire at the end of the year.
I agree with post #5 that Romney doesn’t plan for the total tax take from the upper income to go down. What he plans is restructuring to bring down the RATES but also reduce deductions, loopholes etc, which will fairly well even out. Why would that help the economy as well as the individuals involved? It puts more productive resources at everyone’s disposal and grows the economy. Whereas you can get lost in the weeds as Obama plays his class warfare card and confuses everyone as to exactly what the ISSUE is, anyway.
Except that's a backfire plan....and will bring Republicans and some Dems out of the woodwork to get rid of this lingering hold on both business and ordinary working people.
yes that is what he said. remove deductions from higher income earners while at the same time reducing the rates. That is a fairer, flater tax which I wholeheartedly support.
Get rid of the damn school programs. Get the Fed gove out of the “feed the school children” business. It belongs at the local level and kids need to grab a bowl of cereal and milk before school. Why does the government have to wait on them...and clean up their mess besides....AND YOU AND I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.
Head start....Get rid of it....It’s nothing but a babysitting program.
Amen! Say it again!
If the Republicans just restore or add to the Bush tax cuts, they are missing a HUGE opportunity.
That is, an opportunity to move people who don’t really need benefits out of the benefits system, but without screwing them over.
The way to do this is to offer them a better deal. Here’s how it works.
1) If a person really needs benefits, they continue to get their benefits.
2) However, if they have other taxable income, offer them a better deal. “Don’t take the money you could take, but instead take a tax cut worth a little more than the benefits you would get.”
For example, if they would get $1,000 a year in benefits for something, but they pay $5,000 in taxes that year, if they refused the $1,000, they would only have to pay $3,500 in tax. By not taking the benefit, they would get $500!
Importantly, if the Republicans just restored or increased the tax cuts, these people would save $500 anyway, so from the (Republican) government, it would be a zero sum game as far as revenue is concerned.
But AT THE SAME TIME, it would slash costs to the entitlement programs. AND it would not give the shaft to people who actually needed those benefits to survive, who had paid into them.
So it is a win-win all around, except for those who want to perpetually increase entitlements on that back of ruinous debt, and the Democrats, which are the same people.
“but will also close loopholes and certain deductions on the top group as well”
I’d love to hear specifics about this...
Will Romney actually cut taxes?
Well he said in the debate that he will NOT cut taxes on the rich...
Either way you saps will still vote for him. :P
Joking btw, just stirring the pot :D
Why don’t you concern yourself with being free of the man who would kill you, before whining about the cost of the rescue team?!?!?!
Apparently so would the Dems.
Romney can propose anything he wants & Congress can completely ignore him as they have the Obama budget proposals - nearly unanimous.
So, what Romney is doing is making tax proposals to the American people, & contrasting them with Obama’s tax proposals. Though neither can dictate tax policy, both can give us an idea how they think. That is useful to the voter.
I am not thrilled with Romney, but I would vote for Daffy Duck over Obama.
I do believe Romney has a clue about getting the economy turned around, while the incumbent is determined to continue his path of destruction.
You brought up two issues.
On the first, Romney does not have a tax cut plan, beyond extending the Bush tax cuts.
His tax plan is revenue neutral — trade lower rates for eliminating deductions. It would tend to raise marginal tax rates slightly on higher-income folks, since they make more use of deductions. It will raise more revenue, because of efficiencies due to simplified taxes which will make us more productive, thus having more income to be taxed.
On your second point, Romney said that if the children of illegal immigrants have already PAID for a certificate that grants them two years of residence in this country, he will not revoke those grants. It may not be a popular position, but practically speaking, the lawsuits you’d have if you tried to take back something people paid for would stretch out for two years anyway, so practically speaking it would be of no consequence.
He will stop the program, and he expects to have an immigration policy in place in 2 years.
And sadly for many here, my guess is the final plan he proposes will be soft on children who grew up in this country and have no ties to whatever their “native” country is. There is no political will to do differently — a vast majority of the people in this country support treating these long-term child residence differently than how you would treat the people who actually violated the laws either to get here, or to stay here after their visas expired.