Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney Specifies Deductions He'd Cut
wsj ^ | 4/15/12 | s murray

Posted on 04/16/2012 8:16:32 AM PDT by bestintxas

Mitt Romney, speaking at a private fundraising event on Sunday, offered the first details of deductions he would eliminate or limit in order to offset the income tax cut he has proposed for all taxpayers.

Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said he would eliminate or limit for high-earners the mortgage interest deduction for second homes, and likely would do the same for the state income tax deduction and state property tax deduction.

He also said he would look to the Department of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for budget cuts.

Mr. Romney discussed his plans while speaking to high-dollar donors at a private estate. During the backyard event, which could be heard by reporters outside on a public sidewalk, Mr. Romney offered policy specifics he has yet to unveil on the campaign trail.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, shown last week, offered the first details Sunday of tax deductions he would eliminate. .Mr. Romney has pledged a 20% cut to income tax rates for taxpayers in all income brackets but has offered few details for how he would pay for the proposal. Mr. Romney also has vowed to bring federal spending under control, while offering few details on which programs he would cut.

President Barack Obama recently criticized Republicans on the point, saying they hadn't specified which programs they would pare back.

"I'm going to probably eliminate for high-income people the second-home mortgage deduction," Mr. Romney told supporters at the event Sunday. His plans could allow him to keep the same level of tax revenue but to lower rates, which he said would allow small businesses to keep a larger share of their earnings and expand

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bow2deathcare; bow2romney; bow2romneycare; bow2romneyfascism; bow2romneyfees; bow2romneypayoffs; bow2romneytaxes; bownow2romney; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-84 last
To: dfwgator

I meant to add, the point being, is that it’s not the taxes, it’s the spending.


51 posted on 04/16/2012 9:15:46 AM PDT by dfwgator (Don't wake up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
you dont have to OFFSET tax cuts! they pay for themselves by growing the economy!!! Only liberals believe that tax cuts have to be “paid for”

Actually, they don't pay for themselves. This is why Federal deficits have ballooned since the Reagan tax cuts. The Reagan philosophy was to starve the beast, in hopes that bigger deficits would lead eventually to spending cuts, as politicians woke up and realized that the country's finances were approaching the abyss. Instead, politicians of both parties simply got comfortable with gargantuan deficits, which is why our debt levels spiked, starting with the Reagan years and have never looked back:

What's particularly amazing is that we fought the Vietnam War and instituted the Great Society programs without bringing the debt up to present levels, as a % of GDP. Cutting taxes doesn't starve the beast (spending), because the beast is clearly morbidly obese. What it's done is run up ever-increasing charges on the national credit card.

52 posted on 04/16/2012 9:24:47 AM PDT by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

high income means you can afford a second home.

It is not just land houses. This also affects the private boat industry. (remember the luxury tax debacle?) Live aboard class boats can be a second home. (also camping vehicles)


53 posted on 04/16/2012 9:27:04 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Yes and movement to simplify taxes would be very good. But where’s the firm commitment to a substantial tax rate reduction that should accompany eliminating so many significant deductions for so many working people? Without cutting the rates down to size, this is little more than a huge tax increase. (And very, very poor politics.) Or have I missed something?


54 posted on 04/16/2012 9:28:01 AM PDT by faithhopecharity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Ok I see now. A promised 20 pct rate cut. Sorry I overlooked that. This is still a fairly small step in light of the need to resurrect the economy (with far, far lower rates and tax simplification). (Ps: why would his political advisors let him propose eliminating a couple of the most popular deductions when there are so many others that could be sacrificed with far less loss of voter support? A mystery). Well it sounds a bit better than the constant talk of higher and higher taxes.


55 posted on 04/16/2012 9:28:11 AM PDT by faithhopecharity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas
Trouble with Mittins, of course, is that we all know he'll say anything to get elected.

Our best hope is a conservative [R]-controlled House.

56 posted on 04/16/2012 9:37:58 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

He is better than Obama, but this kind of CRAP does NOT need to be in any bill passed by the House and Senate. Romney,.as Rush has said, will need to be PUSHED to the right. He can be pushed in the right direction....Obama is an idealogue.


57 posted on 04/16/2012 9:38:20 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

He is better than Obama, but this kind of CRAP does NOT need to be in any bill passed by the House and Senate. Romney,.as Rush has said, will need to be PUSHED to the right. He can be pushed in the right direction....Obama is an idealogue.


58 posted on 04/16/2012 9:39:19 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
Complain all you want, but this looks like a step towards a flat tax.

Existing credits, including the child credit are far more insidious than any state income tax deduction. I don't think anyone will have the guts to challenge credits, though.
59 posted on 04/16/2012 9:39:35 AM PDT by andyk (Go Juan Pablo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
high income means you can afford a second home. It is not just land houses. This also affects the private boat industry. (remember the luxury tax debacle?) Live aboard class boats can be a second home. (also camping vehicles)

This is different from the luxury tax because the luxury tax discriminated against luxury consumption. The removal of home mortgage deductions merely removes the present discrimination in favor of loan-based home purchases.

60 posted on 04/16/2012 9:40:44 AM PDT by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
B.S.

Spending increases and declining private GDP as a result of those spending increases account for 100% of the deficit.

When Obamacare adds a couple trillion more to the deficit, you will still be blaming low tax rates.

61 posted on 04/16/2012 9:51:17 AM PDT by CharacterCounts (A vote for the lesser of two evils only insures the triumph of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

You should familiarize yourself with the Laffer Curve. Tax cuts at the margins increase revenue. Debt and spending are irrelevant to that fact.

There are some idiots who now claim that revenue would have increased even more without tax cuts. These idiots base their findings on theoretical models.

Unlike the “Laffer Curve”, which is born out by the facts. Revenues increased significantly after all such tax cuts.

This fact is actually what makes Romney’s, and likely also Ryan’s, proposal to cut some deductions and give everyone a 20% across the board cut a worthwhile idea.


62 posted on 04/16/2012 9:51:23 AM PDT by free me (heartless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
Imagine, NPR, AMTRAK, and so many departments closed or consolidated for starters before we tackle "entitlements"

Do some more math ...

Medicare/Medicade, Social Security, Welfare, Pensions [the so called "entitlements"] and interest on the debt total 2.3 Trillion: add Defense (600 Billion) and you have 2.9 Trillion. So even if we eliminate ENTIRELY every other expense except for those above, we still have a 600 Billion+ deficit.

What gets axed before the above?
Department of Education [no tears]
Veterans Affairs
HUD
State
Homeland Security
Energy
Justice
Agriculture
NASA
Transportation
Treasury
Interior
Labor
Commerce
Corp of Engineers
EPA
National Science Foundation
Corporation for National and Community Service

Each of these are GONE. IOW, essential government functions must be eliminated if we don't touch the sacred entitlements and/or defense.

Okay, technically, we could have a pure welfare state if we also eliminated defense as well - then we are "balanced" and keep current tax levels & entitlements.

Better is immediate 1/3 across the board cuts. Taxes stay where they are now. THEN have a real debate on the merits of each and every program and how much the people are willing to pay for those programs from TODAYS money.

63 posted on 04/16/2012 10:06:13 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7

“You can believe whatever you want about Romney, but if you seriously believe his administration would not be orders of magnitude better than the current one, you’re out of your mind.

Just be honest. It’s not that hard.”

Thank you! With ALL the people on here willing to vote for Obama I’m really starting to wonder what’s happening here. We have to get rid of the immidiate threat and then hold the next threat to the fire. What is so hard for people to get?! We must stop this bickering about why not to vote for Mitt...he is, regardless what we think, the one. We have to defeat Obama...those who get this will and will work hard for the vote, and those who don’t can simply go ahead and quit. Your negativity and bashing at this point is meaningless to the process. Except if you are meaning to convince others to allow Obama to stay in. If you don’t like it then do us all a favor and at least stop cheerleading for obama!


64 posted on 04/16/2012 10:11:06 AM PDT by AlwaysFrosty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas
He also said he would look to the Department of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for budget cuts.

As any conservative will tell you, the Department of Education, being unconstitutional, should receive a 100 percent budget cut.

65 posted on 04/16/2012 10:27:43 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (There will be no vote for Myth Romney in my house. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7

You are totally correct. Romney would have never been my first, second or even third choice for president out of the possible candidates we had. But to compare him to Obama is much like comparing someone with a traffic ticket to a serial killer. I can’t even imagine that some people, especially folks here, think that Romney is no better for the country than Obama.
I live in Texas, and we have no state income tax, but if the tax cuts are enough to offset all/most of my property tax, then I can lose that deduction. I’d prefer a national sales tax, but that is just me. Get rid of the tax code and the IRS.


66 posted on 04/16/2012 10:27:43 AM PDT by Quickgun (Second Amendment. The only one you can put your hands on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Quickgun
But to compare him to Obama is much like comparing someone with a traffic ticket to a serial killer.

Can you provide a list of legislation that Romney enacted during his term as Governor that is even remotely conservative?

I am not looking for his current "talking points" where he talks conservative, I am talking about real programs or legislation.

67 posted on 04/16/2012 10:32:10 AM PDT by CharacterCounts (A vote for the lesser of two evils only insures the triumph of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
You can believe whatever you want about Romney, but if you seriously believe his administration would not be orders of magnitude better than the current one, you’re out of your mind.

Considering Romney's track record, your statement is laughable, and it is YOU that is our of your mind.
68 posted on 04/16/2012 10:37:29 AM PDT by Pox (Good Night. I expect more respect tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

Comment #69 Removed by Moderator

To: old school

I don’t think he can be trusted to do anything that is not in his own interest.

**
That’s the understatement of the year.

This guy would literally sell his own soul to be president. This whole EXERCISE is all about HIM, not for anything that seems to be “good for the country.”

If he was FOR the country, he’d drop the hell out of the race altogether.


70 posted on 04/16/2012 11:19:48 AM PDT by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7

“There are plenty of criticisms of Romney. However, when you add a subtitle stating “(RINO already talking up more taxes rather than tax cuts)” when the first line of the linked article mentions across-the-board tax cuts, you do not come off as credible. It’s just dishonest.

Flattening the tax code necessarily entails removing deductions. It’s not hard to understand.”

Listen, what you are missing is the big picture.

A conservative paper like the WSJ threw out that headline, not me.

We are in the political fight for our lives. And what does RINO Romney say but throwing out ideas to raise taxes. That is what is being heard. You know it and I know it is not the main point but John Q public believes it to be what they read on a headline.

Why is Romney worried about “offsets” anyway? Does he not know that our economy is bleeding from govt expenditures already?

Do you know what an offset is? It presupposes that one cannot get something from nothing, so it must be made up somewhere.

This RINO does not know or care that we have no obligation to offset anything for the govt purse. Period.

It presupposes it is the govt’s money and must be made up.

That is the problem with Romny. He is a RINO believing the drivel foisted by the libs over the years that govt must be kept whole.


71 posted on 04/16/2012 11:52:41 AM PDT by bestintxas (Somewhere in Kenya, a Village is missing its Idiot, thankfully.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7

Please read post 71 to you and stop thinking you know everything about Romney.

He is giving talking points for Obama to use that will hurt chances of beating zero in the fall.


72 posted on 04/16/2012 11:58:32 AM PDT by bestintxas (Somewhere in Kenya, a Village is missing its Idiot, thankfully.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

“Mr. Romney has pledged a 20% cut to income tax rates for taxpayers in all income brackets but has offered few details for how he would pay for the proposal.”

WTF? Ever conservative knows that tax cuts pay for themselves and GROW the economy. Just another example of how the Wall Street Journal has gone downhill since it was purchased by Rupert Murdoch.


73 posted on 04/16/2012 11:58:36 AM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (The TEA Party is my cup of tea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

That’s a graph of debt!

that has ZERO to do with it.

Tax cuts increase revenue! If you then spend all that extra revenue you end up with that graph. BUT that extra revenue didn’t have to be spent, it could of been used to pay down the debt!

So to argue that Tax Cuts increased the debt to flat out wrong.

Look at it this way... If you make $100,000 a year at your job.. and you get a raise of $20,000... then proceed to spend $200,000 did your pay raise make you go $80,000 in debt?

NO.

Your SPENDING put you in debt.

Tax cuts again and again and again have RAISED the amount of revenue the federal government collects. This is a fact.


74 posted on 04/16/2012 12:28:52 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Go Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

I don’t trust him.


75 posted on 04/16/2012 12:54:25 PM PDT by Wisky Business
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
There is absolutely no reason why interest on loans for a second (or a first) home should be deductible when interest on loans for buying a car, or an airplane, or a gun, or a coin collection, is not.

It's just corporate welfare for the builders and realtors.

Flat tax, no deductions, no loopholes, period.

76 posted on 04/16/2012 3:30:17 PM PDT by Notary Sojac (Oh, no!! Uzbeks have drunk my battery fluid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts

No, I can’t. All I have to evaluate Romney with is what he says now. And, as I said, he would have never been my pick on that basis and what I have heard here and other places. But I can’t imagine him hating this country like the muslim Obama, and I can’t see him intentionally trying to stir race hatred, or appointing people such as Obama has to the supreme court. I still hope for a miracle and the nominee will not be Romney,but if it is, I believe at this point we could survive 4 years of him. I am pretty sure we cannot survive 4 more of Zero, JMHO....


77 posted on 04/16/2012 3:38:20 PM PDT by Quickgun (Second Amendment. The only one you can put your hands on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

Well first of all - we are not talking about this deduction within the context of a full over haul. I would be in favor of that. But that’s apples and oranges, so you’re missing the point completely.

Second of all, airplanes themselves are 100% tax deductible as business expenses, so there’s no need to deduct the interest. Same for many cars and I would suspect for a good number of guns.

The coin collection is ridiculous. How many people take out a loan on a coin collection? Gimme a break.

Next?


78 posted on 04/16/2012 3:43:24 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright; Notary Sojac

...and for that matter, how many folks take loans out on guns? Straw argument.


79 posted on 04/16/2012 4:00:20 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei; All

“Eliminating deductions is part of what’s necessary to move towards a flat tax. Interesting proposal.”

No, it is just a way to tax us more. Don’t be so naive to think there is ever going to be a flat tax. Ain’t gonna happen. Ergo, I get taxed doubly when I can no longer deduct property tax and state income tax. Not a good idea.

IF eliminating tax deductions could be completely linked to implementation upon a flat tax, then it “might” be worth considering. However, to eliminate deductions before, just means I pay more. PLUS, remember....the POTUS has NO POWER TO RAISE OR LOWER TAXES. That resides WITH THE CONGRESS. So, any candidate can pipe dream all he/she wants...they cannot deliver without congressional initiation.


80 posted on 04/16/2012 6:54:33 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7; All

“Romney talked about flattening taxes, which necessarily has to be done by removing or limiting deductions and lowering rates.”

Why is that? Why doesn’t he advocate keeping deductions while lowering tax rates. Less money in federal hands and more money in the hands of people so it can flow back into the economy or be invested, or saved.

What is being advocated is just shifting who pays the taxes, it isn’t about lowering overall taxes. This is income redistribution. What is the catch word for that?????


81 posted on 04/16/2012 7:00:21 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

The luxury tax killed the luxury boat industry which ended jobs and killed those people from buying first homes.

the solution is to make ALL residential mortgages deductable.


82 posted on 04/16/2012 8:47:02 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Drill Thrawl

You have been sig’d. Just go with it.


83 posted on 04/16/2012 10:07:49 PM PDT by mykroar (A vote for Romney IS a vote for Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas
During the backyard event, which could be heard by reporters outside on a public sidewalk, Mr. Romney offered policy specifics he has yet to unveil on the campaign trail.

..........snicker

84 posted on 04/16/2012 10:22:52 PM PDT by spokeshave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-84 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson