Posted on 01/18/2008 5:08:54 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Romney proposes $250 bln economic stimulus package Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:33pm EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Weighing in on a debate about stimulating the slowing U.S. economy, Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney called on Friday for a package of tax breaks expected to cost $250 billion, according to a report by the CNBC business TV channel.
The former Massachusetts governor's package, CNBC said, centered on several permanent tax cuts, rather than temporary rebates and spending programs favored by others engaged in the stimulus discussion in Washington and on the campaign trail.
Romney plans to propose permanently reducing the rate for the lowest income tax bracket to 7.5 percent from 10 percent, retroactive to 2007, eliminating Social Security payroll taxes for workers over 65 and eliminating capital gains and dividend taxes on households earning under $200,000 a year, CNBC said on its Web site.
He would also permanently reduce the corporate tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent over two years and allow businesses to depreciate the value of new equipment purchases faster.
CNBC said an aide to Romney pegged the total cost of his package at about $250 billion.
President George W. Bush earlier on Friday called on Congress to enact a package of temporary tax cuts and other measures estimated to cost up to $150 billion.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
You and me both. I'm trying to wrap my head around the comments here that are saying reducing personal and corporate income taxes, eliminating capital gains and dividend taxes, and giving businesses an investment tax credit are bad things. Goodness gracious, how do these people define conservative economic policies?
Tax breaks? Doesn’t that mean that groups get tax CUTS and that the Federal Government won’t be bailing anyone out? I see no problem with tax payers getting relief.
Those in great need of tax breaks are small businesses, they keep the country going and they get hit hard all the time.
You didn't even read the article, did you? The key words were TAX BREAK.
Another person who didn’t bother to read the article... TAX BREAKS ARE NOT BAD.
You beat me to it. I like tax cuts!
It’s pandering. Buying votes from people with their own money. Such, especially on the eve of an election, should be rejected with prejudice.
You can bet he’s planning to talk about it on Leno tonight.
They are when they only include SOME taxpayers! If it's good enough for some people, then it's good enough for everybody. This is right out of the Al Gore playbook - "tax cuts for the right people..."
As the old saying goes, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”
Pandering? How is that pandering? How is that buying votes? Tax breaks are great for the economy, Romney saying he would like to give them is not pandering, it may be difficult with the brain-dead Congress we have now, but he isn't "pandering".
How's Mr. Huckabee these days?
Depreciation Expense is all fine an dandy until it comes time for recapture. Do you want to pay 39% on the “gain” of selling a $100,000 machine—original cost 3 years later for $33,000 which, coincidentally, is what you still owe the bank?
Maybe I don’t understand, but isn’t part of campaigning telling the people what you intend to do if elected. I don’t call it pandering, it looks like campaigning to me.
Looks like he’s beating the lying Leftist from Massachusetts in South Carolina.
Tax cuts are supposed to be targeted to INCREASE revenues.
If this tax cut is going to "cost" $250 Billion, then who's going to pay for it? My children? My grandchildren?
A properly designed tax cut should not "cost" anything.
Not exactly - he wants to give some people their and/or our money. But not everybody - just those that he thinks might be willing to vote for him.
If he were serious about a tax break, it would be across the board. But he's not - he's just buying votes.
And BTW, tax cuts are not costs!!
Oh, for crying out loud, the MSM always says that someone is "going to pay for the tax cuts." They just use that phrase to scare people, as do the Dems. A tax cut means more in pockets, not less.
The only ones losing money are the fatcats in Washington for their pet projects.
My only complaint is the term stimulus. It's basic economics. A long-term cut increases the efficiency of the economy. A one-time cut just moves money from one pile into another (to taxpayers by issuing more government bond debt). I heard one economist say it's like taking a bucket of water out of the deep end of a pool and dumping it into the shallow end. The government cannot stimulate the economy. Period.
If this stimulus is issued as a check of a fixed amount, it's nothing more than a socialist redistribution of wealth. A percentage cut would be better and more fair...unless you're a liberal Democrat, in which case it would be called "billions for the rich." ;)
LOL!
You ain't seen nothin' yet. They're just getting warmed up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.