FARK.com: (7260426) Mitt Romney's tax plan might actually make sense

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Mitt Romney's tax plan might actually make sense (slate.com)		349
		More: Interesting, Mitt Romney, American conservatives

• • •

6659 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Aug 2012 at 1:05 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7260426

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

349 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

weave		2012-08-10 12:41:50 AM

I love how on one hand you have people saying that the rich already pay most of the taxes, and then turn around and say raising taxes on the rich isn't going to help all that much to bring in more revenue.

ORLY?

So according to your own graphic from the #1 drug-using blow hard, for every 1% I raise taxes on the rich, I'm increasing overall revenue by 86% of 1%. But for every 1% I raise taxes on all the others out there, I'm only raising 14% of 1% (with all other things being equal, like the unlikely event that if I raise taxes on rich by 1% they will stop earning money. Maybe if raised a ridiculous amount that might be true but the couple of percent of the Bush tax cuts? Give me a break...)

So given that, then it makes perfect sense (in GOP land). Let's raise taxes on the tiny part of the pie who are going to feel it the most, and cut taxes even more on the large part of the pie.

And yes, it looks unfair, until you remember little facts like they also have the vast majority of all the income as well.

fusillade762		2012-08-10 12:51:19 AM

Boudica's War Tampon		2012-08-10 01:07:43 AM

And people are actually going to vote Republican.

Summer Glau's Love Slave		2012-08-10 01:10:27 AM

/And here we go...

sprawl15		2012-08-10 01:11:08 AM

nmrsnr: Okay, can anyone explain what Iglesias was trying to say in a way that makes sense? All I got from that was "I'm going to make some bare assertions on the assumption that you'll believe what I tell you, since you trust the internet implicitly." Am I wrong?

Well, if you raise taxes on the middle class it gives you more revenue, which is good. Genius even. It's a totally unique idea that Romney brings to the table, that nobody has ever heard before. Now, keep in mind, he wants to do retarded things with that money, but we should defend the idea anyway.

Fart_Machine		2012-08-10 01:11:51 AM

Lower taxes on the wealthy. Raise the taxes on the Middle Class. That will mean the Middle Class will have less money for consumption but they'll have a greater incentive to make more to join the wealthy.

Or something...

creativeoverflow.net

Stile4aly		2012-08-10 01:15:00 AM

WORK HARDER, PLEBES! DANCE FOR YOUR MEAGER PAYCHECKS!

randomjsa		2012-08-10 01:15:55 AM

How do you know Romney's tax plan would actually work?

Liberals don't like it.

zarberg		2012-08-10 01:23:00 AM

randomjsa: How do you know Romney's tax plan would actually work?

Liberals don't like it.

Well, that makes about as much sense as the article, so ... waffles.

The Jami Turman Fan Club		2012-08-10 01:28:03 AM

Is there anybody out there who would say "I'm paying an extra few percent on my taxes, so I'm not going to work any more?" I don't understand that argument.

quatchi		2012-08-10 01:30:43 AM

randomjsa: How do you know Romney's tax plan would actually work?

Romney doesn't have a tax plan. Nothing you can score. They are still working out the details apparently.. Positing the question, how can this guy still not be ready after doing nothing but running for POTUS for 6 years? Tax the middle class more, tax the rich less and eliminate the estate tax that he calls the "death tax" are the only specifics he mentions regularly.

That's not so much a plan as it is a sure fire recipe for disaster.

MaudlinMutantMollusk		2012-08-10 01:31:51 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Is there anybody out there who would say "I'm paying an extra few percent on my taxes, so I'm not going to work any more?" I don't understand that argument.

I think it fits in with the "these auto dealerships wouldn't have closed if we let the automakers go bankrupt"argument, somehow

/To be honest, for me it just turned into a hellish droning noise about a month ago

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier		2012-08-10 01:32:01 AM

But what about all I this I hear about Mittens caring for me? He's a compassionate conservative.

Poison Appleseeds		2012-08-10 01:32:29 AM

Mrtraveler01		2012-08-10 01:32:38 AM

randomjsa: How do you know Romney's tax plan would actually work?

Liberals don't like it.

Liberals don't like drinking drain cleaner either.

So...

WizardofToast		2012-08-10 01:34:29 AM

It makes sense until it contradicts the GOP's "DEMS ARE TAXING MIDDLE CLASS TO DEATH" talking point drives by.

keylock71		2012-08-10 01:39:53 AM

So when confronting with sob stories about workers who got laid off ...

fark you, asshole...

C'mon down to my neck of the woods and talk like that at any local bar. Make sure you're wearing a knife vest and some good running shoes, though.

Stile4aly		2012-08-10 01:40:21 AM

randomjsa: How do you know Romney's tax plan would actually work?

Liberals don't like it.

Liberals love breathing oxygen. Please prove to the world what idiots we are.

whidbey		2012-08-10 01:40:34 AM

it leaves middle class families with less money in their pockets (so a pro-growth income effect) while also lowering the tax rate they pay on a marginal dollar of additional earnings (so a pro-growth incentive effect). Basically it's a huge win

Suuuuure it is.

rudemix		2012-08-10 01:41:42 AM

The author is either being a shill or satirical. He sucks at both.

EngineerAU		2012-08-10 01:43:07 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Is there anybody out there who would say "I'm paying an extra few percent on my taxes, so I'm not going to work any more?" I don't understand that argument.

I've got to admit whenever my manager would pressure me to take an extra paycheck instead of using my vacation days, one of the reasons I gave for refusing was that extra money gets taxed but not going in to the office doesn't. It's not like they're going to tell me that there's a 20% tax on not going to work so each week of my vacation I'm expected to spend one day sweeping the lobby of the IRS. The boss didn't have a comeback for that, which made him annoyed, which made me happy.

gaspode		2012-08-10 01:45:47 AM

The author appears to believe that people are farking stupid, and will think that if you say 'lower rate' it means they have more money even if they actually have less money.. so you get more money from them and they THINK they have more money left so will spend more.

Now maybe people ARE that stupid, but you aren't supposed to base your tax policy on it.

LoneWolf343		2012-08-10 01:46:25 AM

Well, of course it makes sense. In fact, with all the complaints I have heard about it, "confusing" isn't one of them.

wildcardjack		2012-08-10 01:48:04 AM

I was thinking...

What if you allowed employers to deduct 150% of employee compensation on the expenses?

Would that encourage employers to pay better? Would that encourage employers to hire more?

I have no clue. My mom's an HR director and she doesn't know what the C level executives would do with that kind of news.

gameshowhost		2012-08-10 01:49:01 AM

Jesus H. Christ, the entire internet is trolling me today. WTF DID I JUST READ

TofuTheAlmighty		2012-08-10 01:49:59 AM

Yglesias, like many philosophy majors, has a wee problem reconciling that which is logically rigorous with the fuzziness of (political) reality. In a vacuum, raising taxes on the middle class could be very useful. But Republicans don't exist in a vacuum (though vacuums exist inside their heads) and any middle class tax hikes sought by the GOP will be redistributed solely to the top 0.1%.

misterhowl		2012-08-10 01:54:55 AM

"higher taxes mean less incentive to do economically valuable things"

Yes, because if money is taxed why bother making any? It's better to have none. WTF!?

HairBolus		2012-08-10 01:56:38 AM

I read a recent distillation of my impression of Yglesias;

Harvard dining hall bullshiat

... All this too-clever-by-half contrarianism and nit-picking might have impressed college teaching assistants, but it doesn't impress the millions of Americans who are dealing with things more pressing than Upper-Class White People problems.

With a reader comment:

As a recent graduate student, I'll just say that this is unfair. A student like Yglesias probably was - smart, interested, way too sure of his own smartness and impressed with his own cleverness - would almost certainly get a good grade in a class that I taught, simply because he'd be much more engaged than the majority of students (even at a place like Harvard, I think, although he'd stand out less there than at most of the places I've taught), and because even an obnoxious student who actually participates in class discussion is welcome compared to the typical sacks of dullness you get.

But that doesn't mean we'd actually be impressed with the content of his ideas. A smart undergraduate is just a smart undergraduate - you give him an A, but you don't actually consider his ideas interesting ones that you wish to discuss with your friends on your off-time.

And that's the basic problem with Yglesias. He jumped straight from "smart undergraduate" to "national pundit", more or less, without any intermediate stages. That's not a good recipe for instilling actual expertise and knowledge, and Yglesias has, for the past decade, remained stunted in the form of the smart undergraduate. And a smart undergraduate is only worthwhile because they have potential, because you hope they'll grow out of the stupid parts of being 20 years old and thinking you know everything. Nobody's impressed by a 30 year old playing the same game.

easypray		2012-08-10 01:59:54 AM

I am OFFENDED that you made it sound like I am Robin Hood in reverse.

ALL I'M SAYING is that if we take away your money you will have more incentive to work harder and make more. We do it to horses all the time!

LEAVE THE MONEY in the hands of the ultra wealthy and our bank accounts in the Caymen Islands will make more jobs in ways that spending on science and ARPA and NASA and health care and infrastructure never could!

Biological Ali		2012-08-10 02:08:16 AM

RexTalionis: DamnYankees: RexTalionis: Well, my interpretation of his statement is that if you suddenly find yourself making less, you'd be motivated to work harder and thus make more money.

FTFaccuracy.

Fair enough, but even so, motivation does not make the middle class make more incomes grow bigger, as Yglesias suggests here:

Romney's plan is that by eliminating deductions it leaves middle class families with less money in their pockets (so a pro-growth income effect)

He's not just talking about motivation or incentive, he's directly claiming that leaving middle class families with less money in their pockets would result in growth in income.

And even so, motivation is fine and dandy, but if the job market or economy doesn't support it, that motivation is just going to be frustrated.

The other aspect is that an immediate reduction in the actual income of the middle class would also result in in a decrease in consumption by the middle class - which would very much have an anti-growth effect (and it's unlikely that the Romney plan would support the kinds of increases in government spending that would be necessary to negate that).

gravebayne2		2012-08-10 02:08:40 AM

I'm sure its entertaining to watch mitt in a corn field acting like he knows something about actual people work.

Pincy		2012-08-10 02:14:12 AM

keylock71: So when confronting with sob stories about workers who got laid off ...

fark you, asshole...

C'mon down to my neck of the woods and talk like that at any local bar. Make sure you're wearing a knife vest and some good running shoes, though.

You see, in Conservative-land nobody gets laid off, you just didn't work hard enough and forced your employer to ship your job out of the country.

oldass31		2012-08-10 02:15:02 AM

RexTalionis:
DamnYankees: But doesn't Romney's plan lower the rate on everyone?

Not according to the Tax Policy Institute's report on Romney's tax plan that was released earlier - they said it'll raise the taxes of everybody except those making more than $250,000 a year. And even so, Yglesias' entire theory is premised on the fact that the middle class will get their taxes raised, anyway (i.e. if middle class makes less, they'll do more economically worthwhile things to try to make more).

But can't that same theory be used to support the argument of taxing the rich more?

gameshowhost		2012-08-10 02:17:30 AM

quatchi: randomjsa: How do you know Romney's tax plan would actually work?

Romney doesn't have a tax plan. Nothing you can score. They are still working out the details apparently.. Positing the question, how can this guy still not be ready after doing nothing but running for POTUS for 6 years? Tax the middle class more, tax the rich less and eliminate the estate tax that he calls the "death tax" are the only specifics he mentions regularly.

That's not so much a plan as it is a sure fire recipe for disaster.

It's a Quantum Plan™

Notabunny		2012-08-10 02:17:33 AM

Biological Ali: The other aspect is that an immediate reduction in the actual income of the middle class would also result in in a decrease in consumption by the middle class

the_innkeeper		2012-08-10 02:21:44 AM

One way to reduce taxes for everyone, moslty, and keep the revenue the same would be to break the tax brackets into smaller pieces. If you make each step infinitely small, say down to a penny, and tax each step accordingly, the rates fall for everyone who was above the curve in each bracket. The revenue stays the same because the closer one comes to the function, the closer to the actual value of the function you get.

Yay math.

invictus2		2012-08-10 02:28:21 AM

Hey, and I thought my tax plan was eventually nonsense

Bucky Katt		2012-08-10 02:29:38 AM

FTFA: But since Romney won't defend this on the merits

Even Mitt knows his policy is full of shiat.

tallguywithglasseson		2012-08-10 02:30:07 AM

It's true, with the current tax code. I don't want to do more economically valuable things, because then I might get paid more. Of course I would try to turn down the extra money that would come from my doing pro-growth economic valuable things, to try to avoid being taxed more (nevermind that I would still end up ahead overall. Seriously, you just have to ignore that). But what if I couldn't turn the money down for some reason? So, better to just not do the economically valuable pro-growth things.

Nail on the head, guy. Nail on the head.

zerkalo		2012-08-10 02:30:26 AM

"I has a corm"

impaler		2012-08-10 02:36:50 AM

higher taxes mean less incentive to do economically valuable things

I'm sick of this shat. Yeah, higher taxes means there's no point in getting rich right?

Somehow higher taxes for the middle class will spur them to be more productive, yet the same thing will discourage the rich. I thought the rich were the smartest most productive of society. If tax hikes spurs losers like the middle class, imagine what it will do when the "Job Creators" get a kick in the pants.

Eric The Pilot		2012-08-10 02:44:11 AM

invictus2		2012-08-10 02:44:24 AM

See that pile under my shoe Mitt?, That is my similar opinion of your tax plan.

red5ish		2012-08-10 02:48:23 AM

Please don't strap me to the roof of the car.

A Dark Evil Omen		2012-08-10 02:50:00 AM

I'm getting a kinda-badly-done Modest Proposal vibe from this.

Matt Yglesias should stick with boring polemics. He sucks at anything else.

Babwa Wawa		2012-08-10 02:50:17 AM

HairBolus: I read a recent distillation of my impression of Yglesias;

Harvard dining hall bullshiat ... All this too-clever-by-half contrarianism and nit-picking might have impressed college teaching assistants, but it doesn't impress the millions of Americans who are dealing with things more pressing than Upper-Class White People problems. With a reader comment: As a recent graduate student, I'll just say that this is unfair. A student like Yglesias probably was - smart, interested, way too sure of his own smartness and impressed with his own cleverness - would almost certainly get a good grade in a class that I taught, simply because he'd be much more engaged than the majority of students (even at a place like Harvard, I think, although he'd stand out less there than at most of the places I've taught), and because even an obnoxious student who actually participates in class discussion is welcome compared to the typical sacks of dullness you get.

But that doesn't mean we'd actually be impressed with the content of his ideas. A smart undergraduate is just a smart undergraduate - you give him an A, but you don't actually consider his ideas interesting ones that you wish to discuss with your friends on your off-time.

And that's the basic problem with Yglesias. He jumped straight from "smart undergraduate" to "national pundit", more or less, without any intermediate stages. That's not a good recipe for instilling actual expertise and knowledge, and Yglesias has, for the past decade, remained stunted in the form of the smart undergraduate. And a smart undergraduate is only worthwhile because they have potential, because you hope they'll grow out of the stupid parts of being 20 years old and thinking you know everything. Nobody's impressed by a 30 year old playing the same game.

I'd agree with that. The single best way to get good grades in a business/econ/history/polysci type of class is to be a contrarian. In your average university 95% of the class is parroting shiat from the books and lectures. I'd wager that it's 80% in elite universities. This is an outcome of the Socratic method. There's nothing wrong with the Socratic method, and it's probably the only reliable way to teach the liberal arts. The problem with it is that you cannot evaluate your students in advanced classes if they will not argue with your premises. After all, in the 300-400 level classes, your goal is not to teach them fact, but to interpret evidence. I did well as a result of competitive debate - being able to argue a point I didn't really believe in. Some might think that to be a depraved talent, but there's no better way to spot a fraud than having to argue a fraud's stance.

However, the commenter is completely correct. Intellectual exercises in an academic environment are fun and educational. Putting them forth in bad faith in a public forum is destructive.

To wit: Do not justify Romney's destructive tax policy based on the half of it that is non-destructive. Especially if Romney is not willing to do so.

Sabyen91		2012-08-10 02:54:51 AM

it leaves middle class families with less money in their pockets (so a pro-growth income effect)

Trolololo.

fusillade762		2012-08-10 02:56:24 AM

This guy's argument makes the Laffer curve look reasonable.

Sabyen91		2012-08-10 02:56:55 AM

GAT_00: MacEnvy: GAT_00: MacEnvy: If you ignore that there are actual people involved and just pretend you're looking at numbers on a page, and throw out the benefits of lower income inequality, then if you squint really hard you can almost rationalize it.

Congratulations. I hope you have a dental pick or something to get that knot out of your logic.

Honestly, we do need to raise taxes some on the middle class. Can't close the deficit realistically with only taxes on the rich.

But there's no reason to raise taxes on the middle class to give the rich another tax cut.

I'm not denying that. But there's absolutely no coherent message in this piece that even remotely justifies Romney's plan.

I think some days the editors at Slate freak out because they haven't published enough and just throw together whatever they can in 10 minutes.

YglesiaDinki: I'm going to give Yglesias the benefit of the doubt and say this was just an attempt at sarcastic humor that went badly astray. Because if it was in any way serious, he's gone off the deep end.

I was thinking the same thing. He has to be posting satire on this one.

Sabyen91		2012-08-10 02:58:14 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Dinki: I'm going to give Yglesias the benefit of the doubt and say this was just an attempt at sarcastic humor that went badly astray. Because if it was in any way serious, he's gone off the deep end.

It almost reads like that, but you can't be sure. What a weird piece.

I think the dude got hacked by the Heritage Foundation.

Displayed 50 of 349 comments