Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The Weekly Standard)   "Thank you Mr. Obama for bringing attention to my study showing the Romney tax plan increasing taxes on the middle class. Now, if only you could actually point out how it doesn't say that"   (weeklystandard.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, obama, middle class, Martin Feldstein, Obama campaign  
•       •       •

2879 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Oct 2012 at 12:13 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-10-08 10:30:46 AM  
Which Romney tax plan are you referring to?

Newt Gingrich: Romney Flip-Flopped On Tax Cuts
 
2012-10-08 10:37:41 AM  
It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.
 
2012-10-08 10:41:48 AM  
There's only a month until the election. Romney and Ryan can't explain which deductions they need to eliminate in such a short time!
 
2012-10-08 10:53:53 AM  
Can we turn this into a global warming thread, since you know, there are hella more scientists being misrepresented about that by a bigger group.
 
2012-10-08 11:11:00 AM  
sssssssssssssss we're not allowed to point out the truth, that racist.
 
2012-10-08 11:31:19 AM  

impaler: Which Romney tax plan are you referring to?

Newt Gingrich: Romney Flip-Flopped On Tax Cuts


There has to be a better person than Gingrich who can criticize Romney on this. What good is it when you have clowns like Gingrich, Trump or Palin express opinions that you happen to agree with?
 
2012-10-08 12:04:50 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: sssssssssssssss we're not allowed to point out the truth, that racist.


Which truth? The one that he said before the debates, or the one he said during the debates?

/we are in full superposition mode, folks
 
2012-10-08 12:17:07 PM  
Another 0bama lie
That is all he did in the debate. Well, besides look down at the podium a lot.

Romney has been playing the long game and had 0bama rope a doped into thinking he was debating the characterture that 0bama created (no regulation, killing a woman because she lost her insurance, giving 5t in tax breaks to the rich, eating a dog, etc)
 
2012-10-08 12:17:58 PM  
Again we have the liberals saying "When we voted for Obama we expected no details on anything and neither should you. He didn't even live up to his promise to have the health care debate in public. Now we expect Romney/Ryan to release every single solitary detail of everything they want to do... Or they're hiding something!"
 
2012-10-08 12:18:56 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Which truth? The one that he said before the debates, or the one he said during the debates?


the truth that's most convenient at any given time. Duh.
 
2012-10-08 12:19:09 PM  

randomjsa: Again we have the liberals saying "When we voted for Obama we expected no details on anything and neither should you. He didn't even live up to his promise to have the health care debate in public. Now we expect Romney/Ryan to release every single solitary detail of everything they want to do... Or they're hiding something!"


No, we have you saying what liberals supposedly said, except we didn't.

So... STFU?
 
2012-10-08 12:19:26 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Another 0bama lie
That is all he did in the debate. Well, besides look down at the podium a lot.

Romney has been playing the long game and had 0bama rope a doped into thinking he was debating the characterture that 0bama created (no regulation, killing a woman because she lost her insurance, giving 5t in tax breaks to the rich, eating a dog, etc)


Out of curiousity, do you know what rope-a-dope means?
 
2012-10-08 12:19:28 PM  
Harvey Rosen, a public finance expert at Princeton, argued that the Romney tax plan will increase economic growth dramatically, which in turn would raise revenue and negate the need for tax increases on the middle-class. He finds that if the Romney plan increases economic growth by 3 percentage points relative to where it would be under current policies - a huge, and many economists think implausible, boost - then Romney's numbers might work out. Link
 
2012-10-08 12:19:49 PM  
FTA: "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.


One of these things is not like the other...
 
2012-10-08 12:19:50 PM  
The only studies that say Romney's plan can be revenue neutral and not hit the middle class assume the plan will create growth

Tax cuts do not create growth

Romney's plan is tax cuts

So . . .
 
2012-10-08 12:20:11 PM  
When will the Weakly Standard finally hire a proofreader? Pretty egregious spelling error,if you ask me.
 
2012-10-08 12:20:19 PM  

kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.


Oh look! You still don't understand

Placing a limit on how much you can deduct is not the same as eliminating specific deductions

It is also a much fairer way to deal with deductions.
 
2012-10-08 12:21:24 PM  
Take top 10% of taxpayers.
Lower tax rate and remove deductions.
Net Gain for top 10% tax payers.
Claim that tax plan is fiscally neutral.

That means that the lower/middle income tax payers make up for the top 10% tax breaks........
 
2012-10-08 12:22:20 PM  

randomjsa: Again we have the liberals saying "When we voted for Obama we expected no details on anything and neither should you. He didn't even live up to his promise to have the health care debate in public. Now we expect Romney/Ryan to release every single solitary detail of everything they want to do... Or they're hiding something!"


Oh and don't forget now that 0bama has been in office for almost 4 years he still doesn't need to release details

Just tell us another story about your grandma or a person you met on the campaign
 
2012-10-08 12:22:36 PM  
What I don't get is how a revenue-neutral reshuffling of the tax code is supposed to do the economy any good.
 
2012-10-08 12:24:04 PM  
I remember the glory of our last GOP President.

We got 9-11! Woo hoo!
Then we got to invade Iraq - AWESOME!
Then we got the great recession! Even better.

Under the last GOP president, unemployment went up 100%! That's freakin fantastic.

I am voting for Romney like five times.
 
2012-10-08 12:24:08 PM  
Whatever your take on this is, Mitt Agrees with you!
 
2012-10-08 12:24:34 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: What I don't get is how a revenue-neutral reshuffling of the tax code is supposed to do the economy any good.


The rich get much more money and that makes supply side Jesus happy.
 
2012-10-08 12:25:42 PM  
I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.
 
2012-10-08 12:26:50 PM  
Are we going to the pedantic "It doesn't actually say he'll raise taxes on the middle class" argument?

These guys remind me of the Dead Alewives D&D exchange

"Picard: How can they surround us I had Mordenkainens Magical Watch Dog cast?

Graham: No you didn't.

Nightblade: I'm getting drunk, are there any girls there!

Picard: I totally did. You asked me if I wanted any equipment before this adventure and I said no, but I need material components for all my spells, so I cast Mordenkainens Faithful Watch Dog.

Graham: But you never actually cast it.

Nightblade: Roll the dice to see if I'm getting drunk!

Graham: Ugh. Yeah you are.

Nightblade: Are there any girls there?

Graham: Yeah!

Picard: I did though; I completely said when you asked me.

Graham: No you didn't. You didn't actually say that you were casting the spell so now there's ogres. Ok."
 
2012-10-08 12:27:09 PM  

The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.


Sorry to break it to you bro, but the Weakly Standard is filled with lies and bullshait.
 
2012-10-08 12:27:39 PM  
His study says that a tax plan along the lines of Romney's is theoretically possible, not that Romney's plan actually adheres to it's stated goals.
 
2012-10-08 12:27:41 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Another 0bama lie
That is all he did in the debate. Well, besides look down at the podium a lot.

Romney has been playing the long game and had 0bama rope a doped into thinking he was debating the characterture that 0bama created (no regulation, killing a woman because she lost her insurance, giving 5t in tax breaks to the rich, eating a dog, etc)


So if Romney is elected, we'll have a President who has severe brain damage and mostly just stands around smiling as people lead him from event to event? It really will be like the Reagan years all over again.
 
2012-10-08 12:27:51 PM  

pacified: The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.

Sorry to break it to you bro, but the Weakly Standard is filled with lies and bullshait.


No Republican has ever misrepresented anything, much less the work of economists.
 
2012-10-08 12:28:37 PM  
Huh, as it turns out, The Numbers do lie.
 
2012-10-08 12:29:49 PM  

pacified: The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.

Sorry to break it to you bro, but the Weakly Standard is filled with lies and bullshait.


did they misquote the author of the study?
 
2012-10-08 12:30:02 PM  
Obama wasn't citing Rosen's estimate, he's citing the research by the Brookings Institution. Rosen's math only works if you assume that the tax cuts speed up the economy by an additional 2.29% every year (which doesn't reflect the real stimulative effect of historic tax cuts). Also note that this doesn't match Romney's claim that he will cut taxes on the middle class while either raising or keeping constant the taxes of the rich.

How anyone can honestly think cutting marginal tax rates while keeping effective tax rates the same is expansionary monetary policy is beyond me, but then again these people think a tax cut to stimulate the economy is not an example of Keynesianism.
 
2012-10-08 12:30:16 PM  
Look, we'll tell you how it works. Once you elect us.
 
2012-10-08 12:30:33 PM  

Bhruic: FTA: "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

One of these things is not like the other...


Exactly. The first group is a bunch of moochers that needs to get more skin in the game, and the latter are the job creators who should, honestly, probably get a tax cut. Go Romney!
 
2012-10-08 12:31:19 PM  

The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.


/implying that the Romney campaign wouldn't or haven't misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage
 
2012-10-08 12:31:23 PM  

skullkrusher: pacified: The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.

Sorry to break it to you bro, but the Weakly Standard is filled with lies and bullshait.

did they misquote the author of the study?


Any publication that still has Bill Kristol write is automatically bullshiat.
 
2012-10-08 12:32:25 PM  

pacified: skullkrusher: pacified: The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.

Sorry to break it to you bro, but the Weakly Standard is filled with lies and bullshait.

did they misquote the author of the study?

Any publication that still has Bill Kristol write is automatically bullshiat.


I don't think logic works that way
 
2012-10-08 12:32:59 PM  

Grungehamster: Rosen's math only works if you assume that the tax cuts speed up the economy by an additional 2.29% every year (which doesn't reflect the real stimulative effect of historic tax cuts).


Look, when reality doesn't match right-wing dogma, it is obvious reality that's wrong and we shouldn't encourage it.
 
2012-10-08 12:33:04 PM  

skullkrusher: pacified: skullkrusher: pacified: The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.

Sorry to break it to you bro, but the Weakly Standard is filled with lies and bullshait.

did they misquote the author of the study?

Any publication that still has Bill Kristol write is automatically bullshiat.

I don't think logic works that way


Well, its ok for you to be wrong.
 
2012-10-08 12:34:29 PM  

propasaurus: Huh, as it turns out, The Numbers do lie.


Judging from the responses so far, look like my prediction was pretty accurate. It's already brought out the ad hononims, attacks on the messenger and 'B..b..but republicans'.
 
2012-10-08 12:34:32 PM  

pacified: skullkrusher: pacified: skullkrusher: pacified: The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.

Sorry to break it to you bro, but the Weakly Standard is filled with lies and bullshait.

did they misquote the author of the study?

Any publication that still has Bill Kristol write is automatically bullshiat.

I don't think logic works that way

Well, its ok for you to be wrong.


sure it is but logic doesn't work that way either.
 
2012-10-08 12:35:02 PM  

GoodyearPimp: Look, we'll tell you how it works. Once you elect us.


Hey, no fair using liberal talking points against liberals! You'll make them all mad and butthurt and stuff.
 
2012-10-08 12:36:51 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Harvey Rosen, a public finance expert at Princeton, argued that the Romney tax plan will increase economic growth dramatically, which in turn would raise revenue and negate the need for tax increases on the middle-class. He finds that if the Romney plan increases economic growth by 3 percentage points relative to where it would be under current policies - a huge, and many economists think implausible, boost - then Romney's numbers might work out. Link


Supply Side will work this time! I know it will! This time....
 
2012-10-08 12:37:35 PM  

Grungehamster: Obama wasn't citing Rosen's estimate, he's citing the research by the Brookings Institution. Rosen's math only works if you assume that the tax cuts speed up the economy by an additional 2.29% every year (which doesn't reflect the real stimulative effect of historic tax cuts). Also note that this doesn't match Romney's claim that he will cut taxes on the middle class while either raising or keeping constant the taxes of the rich.

How anyone can honestly think cutting marginal tax rates while keeping effective tax rates the same is expansionary monetary policy is beyond me, but then again these people think a tax cut to stimulate the economy is not an example of Keynesianism.


Expansionary fiscal policy; excuse me.
 
2012-10-08 12:37:44 PM  
The "reasonable assumptions" of the study, though, include removing deductions from the middle class. They also fail to consider the estate tax cuts that Romney has promised. And in the end, some of their numbers come from projected growth that is not realistic.

So... ignore the actual things Romney has said and project some awesome growth, and you see, move along, nothing to see here.
 
2012-10-08 12:37:56 PM  
Which Mitt Romney are we talking about? Governor of Massachusetts center-left Mitt Romney? Post primary pseudo-teatard Mitt Romney? Or last Wednesday Tim Yenmort?
 
2012-10-08 12:37:59 PM  
Why would Romney/Ryan release a list of deductions to be removed? Because they feel like giving Obama ammo to use against them? Every deduction will have a special interest group behind it.

Plus, the removal of deductions will be a negotiation with Ds and Rs in congress.

Asking for specifics at this point is either being idiotic or disingenuous
 
2012-10-08 12:38:17 PM  

kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.


Why should taxpayers subsidize your home ownership or breeding?
 
2012-10-08 12:39:41 PM  

MugzyBrown: Asking for specifics at this point is either being idiotic or disingenuous


Because who farking needs facts and specifics before pulling the lever? The important thing is that he's not B(a)lack Obama.
 
2012-10-08 12:40:03 PM  

MugzyBrown: Why would Romney/Ryan release a list of deductions to be removed? Because they feel like giving Obama ammo to use against them? Every deduction will have a special interest group behind it.

Plus, the removal of deductions will be a negotiation with Ds and Rs in congress.

Asking for specifics at this point is either being idiotic or disingenuous


Not when your plan specifically requires the deductions in order to meet your stated goal of "revenue neutrality". If the deductions are yet to be negotiated, you can't therefore claim they will offset your tax cuts. You simply don't know
 
2012-10-08 12:40:11 PM  

MugzyBrown: Why would Romney/Ryan release a list of deductions to be removed? Because they feel like giving Obama ammo to use against them? Every deduction will have a special interest group behind it.

Plus, the removal of deductions will be a negotiation with Ds and Rs in congress.

Asking for specifics at this point is either being idiotic or disingenuous


Because the deductions on "rich people" won't pay for the plan and they don't want to tell people that they want them to give up deducting mortgage interest and their state and local taxes?
 
2012-10-08 12:40:34 PM  
a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

Isn't Romney's plan for a 25% across the board tax cut?

How could you give them a 25% tax cut and still keep their tax burden the same?
 
2012-10-08 12:41:18 PM  

MugzyBrown: Why would Romney/Ryan release a list of deductions to be removed? Because they feel like giving Obama ammo to use against them? Every deduction will have a special interest group behind it.

Plus, the removal of deductions will be a negotiation with Ds and Rs in congress.

Asking for specifics at this point is either being idiotic or disingenuous


i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-08 12:41:21 PM  

Giltric: kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.

Why should taxpayers subsidize your home ownership or breeding?


Those home owners / breeders are also Republicans. So should you:

1) Backtrack now that you realize that it would hurt Vulture / Voucher's chances?
2) Double down and neglect the fact that tax policy can stimulate the economy whereas doing nothing, which the GOP usually advocates, won't.

Your move, bro.
 
2012-10-08 12:41:25 PM  

Giltric: kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.

Why should taxpayers subsidize your home ownership or breeding?


Both have a net stabilizing effect on society? And if you're having kids to claim exemptions, you're doing it wrong.

By the by, this is why polygamy needs to stay banned. A large number of unattached young males is bad juju.
 
2012-10-08 12:41:51 PM  

Bhruic: FTA: "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

One of these things is not like the other...


Came here to post this. And Income above 200k is middle class?
 
2012-10-08 12:42:22 PM  

indylaw: MugzyBrown: Asking for specifics at this point is either being idiotic or disingenuous

Because who farking needs facts and specifics before pulling the lever? The important thing is that he's not B(a)lack Obama.


So when you did or did not vote for Obama in 2008, it was based on all of the (lack of) details of the health care law he provided during the campaign?
 
2012-10-08 12:42:23 PM  

orlandomagik: Bhruic: FTA: "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

One of these things is not like the other...

Came here to post this. And Income above 200k is middle class?


It's part of an ongoing attempt to redefine "middle class".
 
2012-10-08 12:42:56 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Harvey Rosen, a public finance expert at Princeton, argued that the Romney tax plan will increase economic growth dramatically, which in turn would raise revenue and negate the need for tax increases on the middle-class. He finds that if the Romney plan increases economic growth by 3 percentage points relative to where it would be under current policies - a huge, and many economists think implausible, boost - then Romney's numbers might work out. Link


Wow that sounds like Obama and each and every one of his budgets. If I remember right the 09 and 10 budgets expceted 5% the year thereafter..... and the whole time never leaving 1-2%. Oh noooos a politician making a budget bassed off of inflated expectations.
 
2012-10-08 12:43:26 PM  
i595.photobucket.com
"Greetings, negroidial units. Could one of you kindly inform me as to the identity of the individual responsible for releasing the canines? Bark, bark."
 
2012-10-08 12:43:44 PM  
abcnews.go.com
 
2012-10-08 12:43:50 PM  

Saiga410: Wow that sounds like Obama and each and every one of his budgets.


Sure it does.
 
2012-10-08 12:44:35 PM  

The Numbers: Judging from the responses so far, look like my prediction was pretty accurate.


Maybe the libby libs would stop calling Romney and crew a lying sacking of projecting shiat if they'd mention which deductions would be eliminated? Then it could actually be tested?
Even just hazarding a guess, it doesn't look like the numbers (ahem...) add up. Romney's plan at best relies on unprecedented economic growth which tax cuts haven't been historically shown to cause.
 
2012-10-08 12:44:42 PM  

spongeboob: a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

Isn't Romney's plan for a 25% across the board tax cut?

How could you give them a 25% tax cut and still keep their tax burden the same?


Reagan cut tax rates, eliminated deductions, and increased the tax burden on the wealthy. 

Idon't know how gravity becomes a repulsor force but mathematically the Permieter Institte has shown it to be the case.
 
2012-10-08 12:45:04 PM  

The Numbers: propasaurus: Huh, as it turns out, The Numbers do lie.

Judging from the responses so far, look like my prediction was pretty accurate. It's already brought out the ad hononims, attacks on the messenger and 'B..b..but republicans'.


Look, I know you're trolling but for anyone genuinely interested: the article's assertion was debunked upthread.

I wouldn't have debunked it because I feel like it's rewarding stupidly bad behavior and I have no tolerance for that nonsense. If you feel better when you tell yourself no one knows true reality but you then... Well... Nothing I will say can change that.
 
2012-10-08 12:45:44 PM  

The Numbers: propasaurus: Huh, as it turns out, The Numbers do lie.

Judging from the responses so far, look like my prediction was pretty accurate. It's already brought out the ad hononims, attacks on the messenger and 'B..b..but republicans'.


Allow me to respond to the bulk of this critique then:

"Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release. "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

Romney's tax cuts [on upper class income] would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000

-Barack Obama

----------------------

THE STUDY (pdf warning):
I. Introduction
Our paper examined the effects of simultaneously pursuing five goals that Governor Romney has
proposed:
(1) cut current marginal income tax rates by 20 percent,
(2) preserve and enhance incentives for saving and investment
(3) eliminate the alternative minimum tax,
(4) eliminate the estate tax, and
(5) maintain revenue neutrality
We found that a tax reform plan that simultaneously met the first four goals would imply reduced tax burdens on families with income above $200,000. Meeting the fifth goal - revenue neutrality - would then imply increased tax burdens on other taxpayers, a necessary but perhaps unintended consequence.


Meeting the fifth goal - revenue neutrality - would then imply increased tax burdens on other taxpayers, a necessary but perhaps unintended consequence. - Economists

Now... I'm not sure how you read that as "No tax increases required, A-OK!" when it clearly says "Revenue Neutrality would then imply increased tax burdens" But I guess I'm not privvy to The New Maths.
 
2012-10-08 12:46:04 PM  
Look, people, his PLAN is to increase spending, reduce revenue, and decrease the deficit. Only a MORON would have a problem with this! All you people getting hung up on "details" are just haters.

/sarcasm
 
2012-10-08 12:46:16 PM  

orlandomagik: Bhruic: FTA: "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

One of these things is not like the other...

Came here to post this. And Income above 200k is middle class?


The author says the BO campaign cites his study as support for something not contained in his study. Where's the confusion?
 
2012-10-08 12:46:17 PM  
Nothing new to see here. Obama's entire campaign is built on Strawman arguments.
 
2012-10-08 12:46:59 PM  

coeyagi: Giltric: kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.

Why should taxpayers subsidize your home ownership or breeding?

Those home owners / breeders are also Republicans. So should you:

1) Backtrack now that you realize that it would hurt Vulture / Voucher's chances?
2) Double down and neglect the fact that tax policy can stimulate the economy whereas doing nothing, which the GOP usually advocates, won't.

Your move, bro.


Ahh you sound like a 2 party kind of guy.....I don't think my objectivity would matter.
 
2012-10-08 12:47:00 PM  
Mitt Romney has a tax plan?
 
2012-10-08 12:47:03 PM  

Giltric: kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.

Why should taxpayers subsidize your home ownership or breeding?


Why doesn't Romney believe he can win that debate on the strength of its own merits?
 
2012-10-08 12:47:41 PM  

GoodyearPimp: Look, we'll tell you how it works. Once you elect us.


"We need to pass the bill to find out what's in it" 

Both sides do it. Both sides are equally wrong. This isn't a "so vote Obama" or "so vote Romney issue. This is a this country desperately needs a viable 3rd party issue.
 
2012-10-08 12:48:08 PM  

Giltric: spongeboob: a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

Isn't Romney's plan for a 25% across the board tax cut?

How could you give them a 25% tax cut and still keep their tax burden the same?

Reagan cut tax rates, eliminated deductions, and increased the tax burden on the wealthy. 

Idon't know how gravity becomes a repulsor force but mathematically the Permieter Institte has shown it to be the case.


You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.
 
2012-10-08 12:48:36 PM  

skullkrusher: orlandomagik: Bhruic: FTA: "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

One of these things is not like the other...

Came here to post this. And Income above 200k is middle class?

The author says the BO campaign cites his study as support for something not contained in his study. Where's the confusion?


That the BO citation is, in fact, contained in his study? I'll be honest. I'm confused.
 
2012-10-08 12:49:15 PM  

Tema213: GoodyearPimp: Look, we'll tell you how it works. Once you elect us.

"We need to pass the bill to find out what's in it" 

Both sides do it. Both sides are equally wrong. This isn't a "so vote Obama" or "so vote Romney issue. This is a this country desperately needs a viable 3rd party issue.


Except that's not what Pelosi said and not what she meant by what she said.

But nice try.

Both sides aren't bad. One side is bad, and the other side is stupid and evil. Its worse.
 
2012-10-08 12:49:16 PM  
Mitt Romney is happy, he barely pays taxes.

talkingpointsmemo.com
 
2012-10-08 12:49:32 PM  

BeesNuts: Giltric: kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.

Why should taxpayers subsidize your home ownership or breeding?

Why doesn't Romney believe he can win that debate on the strength of its own merits?


You didn't answer the question I asked of the other poster. I'm not sure why you even bothered to post.
 
2012-10-08 12:49:34 PM  

badaboom: Nothing new to see here. Obama's entire campaign is built on Strawman arguments.


Because Romney's tax plan is built on Strawman economics.
 
2012-10-08 12:49:39 PM  

randomjsa: Again we have the liberals saying "When we voted for Obama we expected no details on anything and neither should you. He didn't even live up to his promise to have the health care debate in public. Now we expect Romney/Ryan to release every single solitary detail of everything they want to do... Or they're hiding something!"


You have an annoying habit of telling us what liberals "said," when we didn't say any such thing. I can't think of a single person who actually uttered, "I don't need to know any details about his policy."

Please spend more time researching what people believe instead of telling them. Just because Rush does it doesn't mean you have to.
 
2012-10-08 12:50:59 PM  

Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.

Why should taxpayers subsidize your home ownership or breeding?

Those home owners / breeders are also Republicans. So should you:

1) Backtrack now that you realize that it would hurt Vulture / Voucher's chances?
2) Double down and neglect the fact that tax policy can stimulate the economy whereas doing nothing, which the GOP usually advocates, won't.

Your move, bro.

Ahh you sound like a 2 party kind of guy.....I don't think my objectivity would matter.


It doesn't, Staff Sergeant Gold Standard. Or is that Colonel States' Rights for Racism? What is your title again?
 
2012-10-08 12:52:15 PM  
I am a small business owner (35 employees), and there is an absolute can't-miss sure fire way for me to reduce my tax bill - increase my payroll. In fact for every dollar I spend on payroll, my tax burden decreases about 45 cents. Of course, that 45 cent "gain" cost me $1, so I need to be sure I get more than 55 cents of additional benefit from that $1 spent on payroll.

Now, what would a true payroll-based (i.e., employment-based) incentive look like? Simple - give me a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for additional payroll expenses for a few years. Restrict it to non-family or officer employees so it's harder to game the system by paying my kids a salary (or giving them a bigger one). Give me 100% credit in 2013, 75% in 2014 (off the increase from the 2012 base), 50% in 2015, and 25% in 2016 so it sunsets.

As long as I'm profitable (and paying taxes to begin with), I would be indifferent (economically indifferent, that is) to increasing payroll next year through more hiring, better pay, bonuses, etc, (albeit less and less indifferent each year as it wound down). In other words, each dollar of payroll increase comes back to me in the form of a tax credit in 2013, so my hiring/increasing payroll decision is weighted heavily in favor of hiring/better pay - all I need to justify it is a few cents of increased revenue traceable to the higher payroll costs.

If a 100% credit is too favorable, scale it back - start at 75% instead (or whatever). Limit it to businesses with fewer than X employees (50?), and revenues of less than Y ($5MM?). I'll leave it to the quants to figure out where to set those variables, but this approach is a highly focused incentive to hire and increase pay for small business that already pay taxes (or at least their owners do). Is it cheaper than unemployment benefits (i.e., does the "lost" tax revenue exceed the unemployment benefit payouts)? Don't know, but it seems like it would be, and the intangibles are strong - more jobs for one thing, favoring payroll over other forms of business expenses (which tends to really spread the money around), and getting companies off the fence about hiring.

I'm sure there are lots of paperwork and regulatory burdens that can accompany this, and business owners can decide it's not worth it and keep on keeping on, but my guess is there's a lot of small businesses out there that would start hiring ASAP if this type of scenario existed. It's a classic example of priming the pump to increase demand, and it's focused on the private sector.
 
2012-10-08 12:52:53 PM  

spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.


Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

x88.xanga.com

/Vote Republican
 
2012-10-08 12:53:10 PM  
FTA: "The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same."

Nice exact language there, sounds completely accurate and factual...Or in other non-euphemistic terms "in a made up scenario that has no current basis in reality, something like this might work"

The dismal science indeed.
 
2012-10-08 12:53:51 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: sssssssssssssss we're not allowed to point out the truth, that racist.


No, we can. It's not racist at all.

Mitt Romney is completely full of shiat.

There. See? Not racist in the least.
 
2012-10-08 12:54:01 PM  

skullkrusher: orlandomagik: Bhruic: FTA: "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

One of these things is not like the other...

Came here to post this. And Income above 200k is middle class?

The author says the BO campaign cites his study as support for something not contained in his study. Where's the confusion?


The author's quote in the article describes an income level that the campaign email quoted earlier in the article doesn't talk about, hence confusion? And then also that I wouldn't (but who the hell am i) define the American middle class as people with incomes above 200k, so i have no idea what the author of the study is talking about.
 
2012-10-08 12:54:44 PM  
Supply side economics is retarded crap that never works. Ever. It only creates more deficits and debt, thereby taxing everyone equally at the currency level (which changes in the financial market due to the change in perception of US debt) while reducing taxes for the very wealthy so that any currency tax is offset by the reduction in their own taxes...which does nothing but further increase the wealth gap.

Even if you could offset revenues lost from the tax reductions proposed with revenues gained from the reduction in deductions (and you CANNOT MATHEMATICALLY) it makes no f*cking sense to change it if the end result is the same amount of revenues.

The Romney/Ryan plan is a continuation of the failed tax policies of the Bush Administration. Remember that one? A deregulated, low tax environment which resulted in the largest taxpayer bailout of financial companies in US history?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-08 12:55:16 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Harvey Rosen, a public finance expert at Princeton, argued that the Romney tax plan will increase economic growth dramatically, which in turn would raise revenue and negate the need for tax increases on the middle-class. He finds that if the Romney plan increases economic growth by 3 percentage points relative to where it would be under current policies - a huge, and many economists think implausible, boost - then Romney's numbers might work out. Link


And, in case people are wondering, the reason economists think it's implausible is because the growth rate would be the highest since we started measuring it in the 40's.

The Rosen study is also pretty grossly flawed, as he's using mitigating factors on all revenue reductions from tax repeals and applying idealized revenue growth factors when considering effects in that he's considering categorical repeals of certain types of taxes a 'broadening of the base'.

spongeboob: Isn't Romney's plan for a 25% across the board tax cut?

How could you give them a 25% tax cut and still keep their tax burden the same?


20% across the board cut, in addition to permanently extending the Bush tax cuts, in addition to repealing the AMT and estate taxes and capital gains taxes.
 
2012-10-08 12:55:35 PM  

NateGrey: spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.

Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

[x88.xanga.com image 438x342]

/Vote Republican


No, they blame Tip O'Neill
 
2012-10-08 12:56:00 PM  

MugzyBrown: indylaw: MugzyBrown: Asking for specifics at this point is either being idiotic or disingenuous

Because who farking needs facts and specifics before pulling the lever? The important thing is that he's not B(a)lack Obama.

So when you did or did not vote for Obama in 2008, it was based on all of the (lack of) details of the health care law he provided during the campaign?


I don't remember what level of detail he gave, but I knew that I wasn't going to vote for the farking assholes that wouldn't even acknowledge there was a problem with healthcare.

I voted for Obama because I agreed with his policy positions more than I agreed with John McCain, and because Obama did not choose Hitler as his running mate.
 
2012-10-08 12:57:29 PM  

BeesNuts: skullkrusher: orlandomagik: Bhruic: FTA: "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

One of these things is not like the other...

Came here to post this. And Income above 200k is middle class?

The author says the BO campaign cites his study as support for something not contained in his study. Where's the confusion?

That the BO citation is, in fact, contained in his study? I'll be honest. I'm confused.


I think the confusion is the breakdown between "relative to 2012 law" and what 2013 tax law would be as all currently stands

Here's the study
 
2012-10-08 12:58:32 PM  

spongeboob: a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

Isn't Romney's plan for a 25% across the board tax cut?

How could you give them a 25% tax cut and still keep their tax burden the same?


It's a 20% cut to each tax bracket from the current rates that are about to expire. The 10% bottom bracket would now be 8%, while the 35% top bracket would be 28%. This sort of cut would be highly regressive (to compare, Bush cut the bottom bracket 5% from 15% and cut the top bracket 4.6% from 39.6%), but Romney has said it would be revenue neutral and constitute a tax cut for the middle class but not the rich by cutting tax deductions. The problem comes from the fact that the value of the tax cut is really close the average upper income household takes in deductions total; how could it be revenue neutral unless the difference is made up by lower income individuals, especially since Romney has complained about the capital gains rate needing to be low to spur investment and has said he opposes the estate tax? It only makes sense if the cuts supercharged the economy, which is ridiculous since Bush's tax cuts were rather tepid in stimulative effect (the most generous estimates say that for every dollar cut GDP increased a dollar a year; considering it was deficit financed that means the same effect as an additional dollar of deficit spending) and there are diminishing returns, hoping for growth to make up the difference isn't exactly a plan.
 
2012-10-08 12:58:49 PM  

orlandomagik: skullkrusher: orlandomagik: Bhruic: FTA: "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

One of these things is not like the other...

Came here to post this. And Income above 200k is middle class?

The author says the BO campaign cites his study as support for something not contained in his study. Where's the confusion?

The author's quote in the article describes an income level that the campaign email quoted earlier in the article doesn't talk about, hence confusion? And then also that I wouldn't (but who the hell am i) define the American middle class as people with incomes above 200k, so i have no idea what the author of the study is talking about.


I don;'t think he really addresses the point the BO campaign was making when he said "That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral. " His study DOES show a significant increase in taxes for 100,000 - 200,000 a year but that is relative to current law which is set to expire at the end of this year
 
2012-10-08 12:58:57 PM  

BeesNuts:

THE STUDY (pdf warning):
I. Introduction
Our paper examined the effects of simultaneously pursuing five goals that Governor Romney has
proposed:
(1) cut current marginal income tax rates by 20 percent,
(2) preserve and enhance incentives for saving and investment
(3) eliminate the alternative minimum tax,
(4) eliminate the estate tax, and
(5) maintain revenue neutrality
We found that a tax reform plan that simultaneously met the first four goals would imply reduced tax burdens on families with income above $200,000. Meeting the fifth goal - revenue neutrality - would then imply increased tax burdens on other taxpayers, a necessary but perhaps unintended consequence.

Meeting the fifth goal - revenue neutrality - would then imply increased tax burdens on other taxpayers, a necessary but perhaps unintended consequence. - Economists

Now... I'm not sure how you read that as "No tax increases required, A-OK!" when it clearly says "Revenue Neutrality would then imply increased tax burdens" But I guess I'm not privvy to The New Maths.


FTA: "The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same."

Anyone else now thoroughly confused?
 
2012-10-08 01:00:18 PM  

spongeboob: Giltric: spongeboob: a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

Isn't Romney's plan for a 25% across the board tax cut?

How could you give them a 25% tax cut and still keep their tax burden the same?

Reagan cut tax rates, eliminated deductions, and increased the tax burden on the wealthy. 

Idon't know how gravity becomes a repulsor force but mathematically the Permieter Institte has shown it to be the case.

You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.



Also, the share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent of earners saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.


Revenue and spending are 2 different monsters.....I said nothing about reduced spending. Why are you moving the goalposts?
 
2012-10-08 01:01:31 PM  

sprawl15: 20% across the board cut, in addition to permanently extending the Bush tax cuts, in addition to repealing the AMT and estate taxes and capital gains taxes.


Pffft, but he'll remove some loopholes. How can you say that's not feasible?
 
2012-10-08 01:01:48 PM  

skullkrusher: orlandomagik: Bhruic: FTA: "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

One of these things is not like the other...

Came here to post this. And Income above 200k is middle class?

The author says the BO campaign cites his study as support for something not contained in his study. Where's the confusion?


Well, probably the fact that the author didn't actually say that? Read the above quotes again. He's claiming that his study says that tax payers with incomes above $200,000 won't have taxes increases. The BO campaign didn't say anything about people with >$200,000 incomes. They talked about $100,000-$200,000. So the author is refuting a claim that wasn't made. It's rather confusing when someone puts effort into attempt to correct a mistake that didn't happen.
 
2012-10-08 01:01:51 PM  

NateGrey: spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.

Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

[x88.xanga.com image 438x342]

/Vote Republican


Now post the same chart and use the dollar amount of increases, not the percentages.

We have to pay back dollars, not percentages.
 
2012-10-08 01:02:05 PM  
Also, until some right winger wants to explain how Romney's tax plan is going to work in combination with all of these factors, they shouldn't be posting:

Grungehamster: Obama wasn't citing Rosen's estimate, he's citing the research by the Brookings Institution. Rosen's math only works if you assume that the tax cuts speed up the economy by an additional 2.29% every year (which doesn't reflect the real stimulative effect of historic tax cuts). Also note that this doesn't match Romney's claim that he will cut taxes on the middle class while either raising or keeping constant the taxes of the rich.

How anyone can honestly think cutting marginal tax rates while keeping effective tax rates the same is expansionary fiscal policy is beyond me, but then again these people think a tax cut to stimulate the economy is not an example of Keynesianism.


sprawl15: spongeboob: Isn't Romney's plan for a 25% across the board tax cut?

How could you give them a 25% tax cut and still keep their tax burden the same?

20% across the board cut, in addition to permanently extending the Bush tax cuts, in addition to repealing the AMT and estate taxes and capital gains taxes.

 
2012-10-08 01:02:12 PM  

skullkrusher: I think the confusion is the breakdown between "relative to 2012 law" and what 2013 tax law would be as all currently stands


No, that's independent from Rosen's dual calculation for $200,000 and $100,000 incomes. He's calculating ONLY the effect of the taxes for people of those incomes, under the assumption that if they end up with a net tax increase, it invalidates the TPC's assertion that tax cuts for the rich necessitate tax increases for the poor. He finds that (using his assumptions) for people $200,000 and up, it's a net tax cut, while for people $100,000 and up it's a net tax increase. Thus, the taxes on the poor won't go up, nevermind that's completely contrary to the very trend he just shat out.
 
2012-10-08 01:02:46 PM  

coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.

Why should taxpayers subsidize your home ownership or breeding?

Those home owners / breeders are also Republicans. So should you:

1) Backtrack now that you realize that it would hurt Vulture / Voucher's chances?
2) Double down and neglect the fact that tax policy can stimulate the economy whereas doing nothing, which the GOP usually advocates, won't.

Your move, bro.

Ahh you sound like a 2 party kind of guy.....I don't think my objectivity would matter.

It doesn't, Staff Sergeant Gold Standard. Or is that Colonel States' Rights for Racism? What is your title again?


They usually refer to me as your babys daddy in certain circles but titles aren't importnant right now.

Do you have some sort of Pavlovian response to the word Reagan?
 
2012-10-08 01:05:04 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: NateGrey: spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.

Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

[x88.xanga.com image 438x342]

/Vote Republican

Now post the same chart and use the dollar amount of increases, not the percentages.

We have to pay back dollars, not percentages.


Oh a troll is concerned about facts? Sure.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-08 01:07:10 PM  

Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.

Why should taxpayers subsidize your home ownership or breeding?

Those home owners / breeders are also Republicans. So should you:

1) Backtrack now that you realize that it would hurt Vulture / Voucher's chances?
2) Double down and neglect the fact that tax policy can stimulate the economy whereas doing nothing, which the GOP usually advocates, won't.

Your move, bro.

Ahh you sound like a 2 party kind of guy.....I don't think my objectivity would matter.

It doesn't, Staff Sergeant Gold Standard. Or is that Colonel States' Rights for Racism? What is your title again?

They usually refer to me as your babys daddy in certain circles but titles aren't importnant right now.

Do you have some sort of Pavlovian response to the word Reagan?


I'll take that as "I just want dope, I could care less about all the really sh*tty stuff in the Libertarian platform".
 
2012-10-08 01:07:26 PM  

Fart_Machine: sprawl15: 20% across the board cut, in addition to permanently extending the Bush tax cuts, in addition to repealing the AMT and estate taxes and capital gains taxes.

Pffft, but he'll remove some loopholes. How can you say that's not feasible?


The idea is that he's going to remove loopholes enough to almost meet the income tax cut, and increased revenues from the money bukkake will make up the rest. The biggest problem with this assumption is that it assumes incomes for the rich will remain the same in an environment with a 0% tax rate on capital gains.

It also doesn't address the fact that the majority of the tax cuts to the rich do nothing but further incentivize offshoring, and trickle down relies on the assumption that the rich are spending money on American workers to produce shiat.
 
2012-10-08 01:07:37 PM  

NateGrey: spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.

Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

[x88.xanga.com image 438x342]

/Vote Republican


Obama farked up and lied about someones study....quick lets white knight him with distractions of government spending under republicans in a thread discussing tax policy and revenue!!!
 
2012-10-08 01:07:59 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: NateGrey: spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.

Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

[x88.xanga.com image 438x342]

/Vote Republican

Now post the same chart and use the dollar amount of increases, not the percentages.

We have to pay back dollars, not percentages.


Or add Obama current and Obama prorated for 8 years (~50% and 100-120%).
 
2012-10-08 01:08:13 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Grungehamster: Rosen's math only works if you assume that the tax cuts speed up the economy by an additional 2.29% every year (which doesn't reflect the real stimulative effect of historic tax cuts).

Look, when reality doesn't match right-wing dogma, it is obvious reality that's wrong and we shouldn't encourage it.


The greatest pallet of bullsh*t the GOP ever sold (aside from "liberal media") is the idea that tax cuts for the rich automatically create jobs and stimulate the economy. Hell, "job creator" is now a household phrase. Despite currently being a demonstrable failure, you'll always have people robotically defending the idea because it's now ingrained in their pundit culture. As is the case with "liberal media," no amount of reality will sway their position.
 
2012-10-08 01:08:24 PM  

Giltric: NateGrey: spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.

Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

[x88.xanga.com image 438x342]

/Vote Republican

Obama farked up and lied about someones study....quick lets white knight him with distractions of government spending under republicans in a thread discussing tax policy and revenue!!!


He didn't lie. Quick let's pretend he did.
 
2012-10-08 01:08:47 PM  

coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.

Why should taxpayers subsidize your home ownership or breeding?

Those home owners / breeders are also Republicans. So should you:

1) Backtrack now that you realize that it would hurt Vulture / Voucher's chances?
2) Double down and neglect the fact that tax policy can stimulate the economy whereas doing nothing, which the GOP usually advocates, won't.

Your move, bro.

Ahh you sound like a 2 party kind of guy.....I don't think my objectivity would matter.

It doesn't, Staff Sergeant Gold Standard. Or is that Colonel States' Rights for Racism? What is your title again?

They usually refer to me as your babys daddy in certain circles but titles aren't importnant right now.

Do you have some sort of Pavlovian response to the word Reagan?

I'll take that as "I just want dope, I could care less about all the really sh*tty stuff in the Libertarian platform".


I picture you with a vein bulging out in your neck and forehead from trying so hard......
 
2012-10-08 01:09:09 PM  
Unemployedingreenland:

^THIS

No need to mess with rates/deductions. Just provide a 100% or near 100% credit for new hires by small business.

Cap it to keep the big corporations from being able to use it.
Limit it to X% of business income (so it can't be used to generate losses).

Problem solved.
 
2012-10-08 01:09:37 PM  

Giltric: Obama farked up and lied about someones study


He didn't, though. The Rosen study makes some farking insane assumptions to mitigate the effect of Romney's policy, yet still states that those with $200,000+ incomes will receive a tax cut that must be mitigated by tax increases on those below that cutoff.
 
2012-10-08 01:09:44 PM  

Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.

Why should taxpayers subsidize your home ownership or breeding?

Those home owners / breeders are also Republicans. So should you:

1) Backtrack now that you realize that it would hurt Vulture / Voucher's chances?
2) Double down and neglect the fact that tax policy can stimulate the economy whereas doing nothing, which the GOP usually advocates, won't.

Your move, bro.

Ahh you sound like a 2 party kind of guy.....I don't think my objectivity would matter.

It doesn't, Staff Sergeant Gold Standard. Or is that Colonel States' Rights for Racism? What is your title again?

They usually refer to me as your babys daddy in certain circles but titles aren't importnant right now.

Do you have some sort of Pavlovian response to the word Reagan?

I'll take that as "I just want dope, I could care less about all the really sh*tty stuff in the Libertarian platform".

I picture you with a vein bulging out in your neck and forehead from trying so hard......


Inability to address anything head on? Yeah, thanks for playing, bro.
 
2012-10-08 01:10:37 PM  

Giltric: Obama farked up and lied about someones study....quick lets white knight him with distractions of government spending under republicans in a thread discussing tax policy and revenue!!!


If you dont think Romney will follow his Republican predecessors you have the IQ of a Teabagger.
 
2012-10-08 01:10:39 PM  

NateGrey: tenpoundsofcheese: NateGrey: spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.

Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

[x88.xanga.com image 438x342]

/Vote Republican

Now post the same chart and use the dollar amount of increases, not the percentages.

We have to pay back dollars, not percentages.

Oh a troll is concerned about facts? Sure.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]


you left out 0bama.
try again.
thanks
 
2012-10-08 01:10:44 PM  

CPennypacker: Giltric: NateGrey: spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.

Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

[x88.xanga.com image 438x342]

/Vote Republican

Obama farked up and lied about someones study....quick lets white knight him with distractions of government spending under republicans in a thread discussing tax policy and revenue!!!

He didn't lie. Quick let's pretend he did. LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!

 
2012-10-08 01:11:23 PM  

Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: NateGrey: spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.

Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

[x88.xanga.com image 438x342]

/Vote Republican

Obama farked up and lied about someones study....quick lets white knight him with distractions of government spending under republicans in a thread discussing tax policy and revenue!!!

He didn't lie. Quick let's pretend he did. LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!


Still looking for the lie

Do you know what reaching is?
 
2012-10-08 01:11:41 PM  

dickfreckle: The greatest pallet of bullsh*t the GOP ever sold (aside from "liberal media") is the idea that tax cuts for the rich automatically create jobs and stimulate the economy.


There's a deeper problem here - tax cuts for the rich DO create jobs and stimulate the economy. The problem isn't one of if they do or not, but to what effect. That deeper conversation is what's much more important, because tax cuts' stimulative effect is massively weaker than nearly any other form of stimulative effect. It's a much finer point, but it's much more damning and it happens to be true.
 
2012-10-08 01:12:00 PM  

sprawl15: Giltric: Obama farked up and lied about someones study

He didn't, though. The Rosen study makes some farking insane assumptions to mitigate the effect of Romney's policy, yet still states that those with $200,000+ incomes will receive a tax cut that must be mitigated by tax increases on those below that cutoff.


He lied about the study.
You can argue whether the study is accurate, but you can't argue the fact that 0bama lied about what it said.
 
2012-10-08 01:13:29 PM  

coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.

Why should taxpayers subsidize your home ownership or breeding?

Those home owners / breeders are also Republicans. So should you:

1) Backtrack now that you realize that it would hurt Vulture / Voucher's chances?
2) Double down and neglect the fact that tax policy can stimulate the economy whereas doing nothing, which the GOP usually advocates, won't.

Your move, bro.

Ahh you sound like a 2 party kind of guy.....I don't think my objectivity would matter.

It doesn't, Staff Sergeant Gold Standard. Or is that Colonel States' Rights for Racism? What is your title again?

They usually refer to me as your babys daddy in certain circles but titles aren't importnant right now.

Do you have some sort of Pavlovian response to the word Reagan?

I'll take that as "I just want dope, I could care less about all the really sh*tty stuff in the Libertarian platform".

I picture you with a vein bulging out in your neck and forehead from trying so hard......

Inability to address anything head on? Yeah, thanks for playing, bro.


So you can't afford the house or kids without someone subsidizing you?

Did you also buy the house expecting to be able to afford it after a couple raises in salary?
 
2012-10-08 01:13:49 PM  

randomjsa: Again we have the liberals saying "When we voted for Obama we expected no details on anything and neither should you. He didn't even live up to his promise to have the health care debate in public. Now we expect Romney/Ryan to release every single solitary detail of everything they want to do... Or they're hiding something!"


Healthcare debate took a year, was in public, and used a 20 year old Republican think tank's plan to start.
 
2012-10-08 01:13:58 PM  

sprawl15: It also doesn't address the fact that the majority of the tax cuts to the rich do nothing but further incentivize offshoring, and trickle down relies on the assumption that the rich are spending money on American workers to produce shiat.


It's worth nothing that Reagan was a big fan of Protectionism when it suited him.
 
2012-10-08 01:13:58 PM  

shotglasss: GoodyearPimp: Look, we'll tell you how it works. Once you elect us.

Hey, no fair using liberal talking points against liberals! You'll make them all mad and butthurt and stuff.


You forgot to post your borderline racist comedy image.

/slacking
//your handlers are going to be upset.
///Do you shill from home, or in a cube?
 
2012-10-08 01:14:20 PM  

Bhruic: Well, probably the fact that the author didn't actually say that? Read the above quotes again. He's claiming that his study says that tax payers with incomes above $200,000 won't have taxes increases. The BO campaign didn't say anything about people with >$200,000 incomes. They talked about $100,000-$200,000. So the author is refuting a claim that wasn't made. It's rather confusing when someone puts effort into attempt to correct a mistake that didn't happen.


his study definitely says that there will be net increases of between 16 and 45 billion on people earning between 100 and 200K
 
2012-10-08 01:14:45 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Another 0bama lie
That is all he did in the debate. Well, besides look down at the podium a lot.

Romney has been playing the long game and had 0bama rope a doped into thinking he was debating the characterture that 0bama created (no regulation, killing a woman because she lost her insurance, giving 5t in tax breaks to the rich, eating a dog, etc)


Not yur best work, ten.
 
2012-10-08 01:14:55 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: He lied about the study.
You can argue whether the study is accurate, but you can't argue the fact that 0bama lied about what it said.


What Obama said:
"In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."
What the Rosen study said:
For taxpayers with incomes of $100,000 and above, the net change in taxes is $25.8 billion. For taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 and above, the net change is now negative, $28.1 billion (about 5.5 percent less than baseline revenues of $509 billion).
In moron speak for you: people paying between $100,000 and $200,000 must pay an additional $53.9 billion in taxes to fully make up for the cuts on those above $200,000.  Without these increases, people making less than $100,000 must pay more to make the policy deficit neutral.
 
2012-10-08 01:15:46 PM  
I might point out, that after actually reading the paper by Harvey Rosen, he does NOT actually analyze what would happen with the population making UNDER $100,000/year. He does NOT actually point out the exemptions that will be changed, except making exclusion of employer-provided health insurance no longer deductible. He DOES assume the tax cuts will cause booming economic growth. His analysis for people making between $100,000/year to $200,000/year is:

"The next entry shows that if we account for a modest micro-dynamic behavioral response, this reduction in revenue becomes about $143.9 billion. 14 The next four entries show the revenue gain from base broadening... ... The total is about $200 billion."

Which means these people will be paying MORE in total taxes. While people above $200,000 year would pay LESS in total taxes.
I don't even see an analysis for the population below $100,000/year. (but I'm guessing it looks worse)

We're's the middle class 20% tax cut?
 
2012-10-08 01:16:47 PM  

dickfreckle: randomjsa: Again we have the liberals saying "When we voted for Obama we expected no details on anything and neither should you. He didn't even live up to his promise to have the health care debate in public. Now we expect Romney/Ryan to release every single solitary detail of everything they want to do... Or they're hiding something!"

You have an annoying habit of telling us what liberals "said," when we didn't say any such thing. I can't think of a single person who actually uttered, "I don't need to know any details about his policy."

Please spend more time researching what people believe instead of telling them. Just because Rush does it doesn't mean you have to.


Hes just copying what hes seen on Fox.... the whole "People are saying" and "Some people are saying" lines.
 
2012-10-08 01:16:48 PM  
you mean to tell me Obama lied?

wow, shocking
 
2012-10-08 01:16:51 PM  

CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: NateGrey: spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.

Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

[x88.xanga.com image 438x342]

/Vote Republican

Obama farked up and lied about someones study....quick lets white knight him with distractions of government spending under republicans in a thread discussing tax policy and revenue!!!

He didn't lie. Quick let's pretend he did. LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!

Still looking for the lie

Do you know what reaching is?


"Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release.....

I can't tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.....


who to believe.....annonymous internet poster or economist responsble for the study.....
 
2012-10-08 01:19:19 PM  

Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: NateGrey: spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.

Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

[x88.xanga.com image 438x342]

/Vote Republican

Obama farked up and lied about someones study....quick lets white knight him with distractions of government spending under republicans in a thread discussing tax policy and revenue!!!

He didn't lie. Quick let's pretend he did. LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!

Still looking for the lie

Do you know what reaching is?

"Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release.....

I can't tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.....


who to believe.....annonymous internet poster or economist responsble for the study.....


Did you miss the part where the princeton economist considers people making over 200,000 a year "lower and middle income individuals?"


The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.
 
2012-10-08 01:19:28 PM  

sprawl15: dickfreckle: The greatest pallet of bullsh*t the GOP ever sold (aside from "liberal media") is the idea that tax cuts for the rich automatically create jobs and stimulate the economy.

There's a deeper problem here - tax cuts for the rich DO create jobs and stimulate the economy. The problem isn't one of if they do or not, but to what effect. That deeper conversation is what's much more important, because tax cuts' stimulative effect is massively weaker than nearly any other form of stimulative effect. It's a much finer point, but it's much more damning and it happens to be true.


That's a good point, and I should have clarified that the effect is negligible and not the rising tide of prosperity we're told accompanies lessening the tax burden on those need it the least. Because that's how it's packaged and sold, and continues to be sold despite no strong evidence supporting the idea.
 
2012-10-08 01:20:10 PM  

Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: NateGrey: spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.

Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

[x88.xanga.com image 438x342]

/Vote Republican

Obama farked up and lied about someones study....quick lets white knight him with distractions of government spending under republicans in a thread discussing tax policy and revenue!!!

He didn't lie. Quick let's pretend he did. LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!

Still looking for the lie

Do you know what reaching is?

"Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release.....

I can't tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.....


who to believe.....annonymous internet poster or economist responsble for the study.....


what BO did was call $100,000 - $200,000K "middle class". The study very clearly says there will be a bump in $100,000-$200,000 taxes paid. I don't know if it can be characterized as "large" but I suppose that's subjective.
 
2012-10-08 01:20:17 PM  

skullkrusher: The author says the BO campaign cites his study as support for something not contained in his study. Where's the confusion?


Tax cuts haven't resulted in budget surpluses in decades of trials, where's the confusion? BTW, the author is a far right blogger discussing an 'e-mail the professor sent me'. Your standards for academic rigor could use some bootstrappy.
 
2012-10-08 01:21:09 PM  

el1jones: Which means these people will be paying MORE in total taxes. While people above $200,000 year would pay LESS in total taxes.
I don't even see an analysis for the population below $100,000/year. (but I'm guessing it looks worse)


If the numbers listed in this thread is right then the sub 100kers will see a total of 2.3b more in taxes. Numbers as posted by sprawl15:
 
2012-10-08 01:21:17 PM  

neenerist: skullkrusher: The author says the BO campaign cites his study as support for something not contained in his study. Where's the confusion?

Tax cuts haven't resulted in budget surpluses in decades of trials, where's the confusion? BTW, the author is a far right blogger discussing an 'e-mail the professor sent me'. Your standards for academic rigor could use some bootstrappy.


I assumed that the professor knew what his study contained.
 
2012-10-08 01:22:12 PM  

sprawl15: tenpoundsofcheese: He lied about the study.
You can argue whether the study is accurate, but you can't argue the fact that 0bama lied about what it said.

What Obama said: "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."What the Rosen study said:For taxpayers with incomes of $100,000 and above, the net change in taxes is $25.8 billion. For taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 and above, the net change is now negative, $28.1 billion (about 5.5 percent less than baseline revenues of $509 billion).In moron speak for you: people paying between $100,000 and $200,000 must pay an additional $53.9 billion in taxes to fully make up for the cuts on those above $200,000.  Without these increases, people making less than $100,000 must pay more to make the policy deficit neutral.


He's not going to get it because it's not in his interest to get it. The important thing to him is that Rosen said it was a misrepresentation of his data to claim that he said the middle class will have to pay more, when even his own study says that there is not enough revenue in tax deductions to offset the revenue losses of the tax cuts even with GDP increasing an additional 3% per year unless you go after the deductions of those making between $100,000 and $200,000 a year.
 
2012-10-08 01:22:30 PM  

el1jones: I might point out, that after actually reading the paper by Harvey Rosen, he does NOT actually analyze what would happen with the population making UNDER $100,000/year. He does NOT actually point out the exemptions that will be changed, except making exclusion of employer-provided health insurance no longer deductible.


If you want to amuse yourself, look at the selective mitigating effects he applies during the study. The only time micro-dynamic behavioral effects apparently come into play is when considering the outright revenue reductions of tax cuts.
 
2012-10-08 01:22:36 PM  

CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: NateGrey: spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.

Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

[x88.xanga.com image 438x342]

/Vote Republican

Obama farked up and lied about someones study....quick lets white knight him with distractions of government spending under republicans in a thread discussing tax policy and revenue!!!

He didn't lie. Quick let's pretend he did. LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!

Still looking for the lie

Do you know what reaching is?

"Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release.....

I can't tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.....


who to believe.....annonymous internet poster or economist responsble for the study.....

Did you miss the part where the princeton economist considers people making over 200,000 a year "lower and middle income individuals?"


The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.


200k combined income is a cop and a teacher couple in NJ.

Are you saying cops and teachers are part of the upper crust in regards to income?

Maybe we should cut their salaries to everyone else type levels?
 
2012-10-08 01:23:16 PM  

CPennypacker: Tema213: GoodyearPimp: Look, we'll tell you how it works. Once you elect us.

"We need to pass the bill to find out what's in it" 

Both sides do it. Both sides are equally wrong. This isn't a "so vote Obama" or "so vote Romney issue. This is a this country desperately needs a viable 3rd party issue.

Except that's not what Pelosi said and not what she meant by what she said.

But nice try.

Both sides aren't bad. One side is bad, and the other side is stupid and evil. Its worse.


Oh, and the "3rd party" is just a faction of one of the other two.
 
2012-10-08 01:24:31 PM  

sprawl15: tenpoundsofcheese: He lied about the study.
You can argue whether the study is accurate, but you can't argue the fact that 0bama lied about what it said.

What Obama said: "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."What the Rosen study said:For taxpayers with incomes of $100,000 and above, the net change in taxes is $25.8 billion. For taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 and above, the net change is now negative, $28.1 billion (about 5.5 percent less than baseline revenues of $509 billion).In moron speak for you: people paying between $100,000 and $200,000 must pay an additional $53.9 billion in taxes to fully make up for the cuts on those above $200,000.  Without these increases, people making less than $100,000 must pay more to make the policy deficit neutral.


From the study: The main conclusion is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on high-income individuals about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.

Try again.
 
2012-10-08 01:26:40 PM  
amazing how many farkers are smart than a Princeton economist. Are you all Harvard or MIT economists?

"The main conclusion is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on high-income individuals about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral."
 
2012-10-08 01:27:53 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: amazing how many farkers are smart than a Princeton economist.

Now

the GOP trusts libby lib liberal elitist professors.
 
2012-10-08 01:27:57 PM  
Looks like not a lot of people reading the article here! A ctrl+f of "obamacare", "PPACA", or "ffordable" finds nothing. The key to this dispute is if Obamacare's taxes are included in the baseline of "revenue neutral" or not. Each side has a point. Leave it up to fark libs to not RTFA when it makes their side look bad!
 
2012-10-08 01:28:21 PM  

Grungehamster: The important thing to him is that Rosen said it was a misrepresentation of his data to claim that he said the middle class will have to pay more, when even his own study says that there is not enough revenue in tax deductions to offset the revenue losses of the tax cuts even with GDP increasing an additional 3% per year unless you go after the deductions of those making between $100,000 and $200,000 a year.


To be fair, Rosen's implied takeaway could have been that the lower class, rather than the middle class, should be made to carry the burden of the cuts on the $200k+ earners.

Saiga410: If the numbers listed in this thread is right then the sub 100kers will see a total of 2.3b more in taxes.


Keep in mind, I'm also assuming that Rosen's assumptions are totally 100% true for consistency. In reality, they're pants on head retarded, since it's assuming an annual GDP growth rate of around 5.5% as well as assuming no rich people will shift income to capital gains and all loophole cuts will be across the board when the main 'loopholes' that will likely be cut disproportionately affect the middle class.
 
2012-10-08 01:29:01 PM  

Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.

Why should taxpayers subsidize your home ownership or breeding?

Those home owners / breeders are also Republicans. So should you:

1) Backtrack now that you realize that it would hurt Vulture / Voucher's chances?
2) Double down and neglect the fact that tax policy can stimulate the economy whereas doing nothing, which the GOP usually advocates, won't.

Your move, bro.

Ahh you sound like a 2 party kind of guy.....I don't think my objectivity would matter.

It doesn't, Staff Sergeant Gold Standard. Or is that Colonel States' Rights for Racism? What is your title again?

They usually refer to me as your babys daddy in certain circles but titles aren't importnant right now.

Do you have some sort of Pavlovian response to the word Reagan?

I'll take that as "I just want dope, I could care less about all the really sh*tty stuff in the Libertarian platform".

I picture you with a vein bulging out in your neck and forehead from trying so hard......

Inability to address anything head on? Yeah, thanks for playing, bro.

So you can't afford the house or kids without someone subsidizing you?

Did you also buy the house expecting to be able to afford it after a couple raises in salary?


If by you, you mean "Republican voters", then yes. My point was simply this: Romney won't tell the voters that he is taking their home mortgage interest deduction away because he'll piss off even some of his voters. In my case, that's about $4K a year (not that I was voting for him anyway). Do you think the tea partiers will equate this with responsible governance? F*ck no, they'll lament their "handout" going away.

And my other point again was just "It can help the economy." If you don't feel that is something the government should do, then that's your perspective, and feel free to go to Home Depot to get that bath tub to drown the government in. I'll make sure to tell all the Mexican day laborers to laugh and make fun of you in Spanish when they see you.
 
2012-10-08 01:29:57 PM  

shadow9d9: randomjsa: Again we have the liberals saying "When we voted for Obama we expected no details on anything and neither should you. He didn't even live up to his promise to have the health care debate in public. Now we expect Romney/Ryan to release every single solitary detail of everything they want to do... Or they're hiding something!"

Healthcare debate took a year, was in public, and used a 20 year old Republican think tank's plan to start.


Exactly. How much more information did Republicans need to learn about the plan they came up with as an alternative to universal health care? Why couldn't they have just spun the issue as, "We forced Obama to use our plan!" instead of, "Obama forced us to use some crazy plan we never heard of and know nothing about except that it's socialism!" ?
 
2012-10-08 01:31:02 PM  

MugzyBrown: Why would Romney/Ryan release a list of deductions to be removed? Because they feel like giving Obama ammo to use against them? Every deduction will have a special interest group behind it.

Plus, the removal of deductions will be a negotiation with Ds and Rs in congress.

Asking for specifics at this point is either being idiotic or disingenuous


I have to make sure this gets brought up again this since is the kind of horrific derp that leads to people actually believing Romney's plan is feasible

Your point is exactly WHY Romney is a disingenuous douchebag about his tax plan. Most non-partisan studies show that his plan won't work even assuming a lot of things work out just right for Romney. Some right-wing studies show that with some extreme manipulation of the economy and number fudging, it could possibly, maybe, best case scenario in 100 years good, type thing, work out and actually be revenue neutral, and hence be "legit".

Facts: It will not work out. Congressman with large voters bases that rely on some of those deductions will fight against them. Others will dispute benefit decreases because they just don't agree with them. Some will not vote for them just because of party affiliations and disagreements. This virtually guarantees that his policy will not in any way possible be revenue neutral, or else will indeed increase taxes on the middle/lower class. This is why, in this situation, we DO NEED details. We need to know exactly what deductions he's planning on cutting out beforehand. Because if we don't know what his plan even is, then people will be voting based on an ideal dream instead of an actual policy. Would you still vote for Romney if you knew that his final tax policy would be 300 billion in the red? Or that middle class people would indeed be paying ~$2500 a year more in taxes to pick up the upper class slack?
 
2012-10-08 01:31:23 PM  
I love the way one poster decries the lack of specifics, and the next quantifies the impact for every income level.
 
2012-10-08 01:34:44 PM  
That paper looks like something that a 1st year grad student would be embarrassed to put out
 
2012-10-08 01:34:44 PM  

sprawl15: Keep in mind, I'm also assuming that Rosen's assumptions are totally 100% true for consistency


I dont have a dog in this hunt. The amusing thing for me it is the stupidity of many farkers that gets me. There are plenty of people who have posted the studies finding for 200k+ and 100k to 200k but are unable to do the simple math to find out the sub 100k if this is revenue neutral. (200k) + (200-100K) + (-100k) = 0 It aint that hard.
 
2012-10-08 01:36:34 PM  

Sm3agol85: MugzyBrown: Why would Romney/Ryan release a list of deductions to be removed? Because they feel like giving Obama ammo to use against them? Every deduction will have a special interest group behind it.

Plus, the removal of deductions will be a negotiation with Ds and Rs in congress.

Asking for specifics at this point is either being idiotic or disingenuous

I have to make sure this gets brought up again this since is the kind of horrific derp that leads to people actually believing Romney's plan is feasible

Your point is exactly WHY Romney is a disingenuous douchebag about his tax plan. Most non-partisan studies show that his plan won't work even assuming a lot of things work out just right for Romney. Some right-wing studies show that with some extreme manipulation of the economy and number fudging, it could possibly, maybe, best case scenario in 100 years good, type thing, work out and actually be revenue neutral, and hence be "legit".

Facts: It will not work out. Congressman with large voters bases that rely on some of those deductions will fight against them. Others will dispute benefit decreases because they just don't agree with them. Some will not vote for them just because of party affiliations and disagreements. This virtually guarantees that his policy will not in any way possible be revenue neutral, or else will indeed increase taxes on the middle/lower class. This is why, in this situation, we DO NEED details. We need to know exactly what deductions he's planning on cutting out beforehand. Because if we don't know what his plan even is, then people will be voting based on an ideal dream instead of an actual policy. Would you still vote for Romney if you knew that his final tax policy would be 300 billion in the red? Or that middle class people would indeed be paying ~$2500 a year more in taxes to pick up the upper class slack?


Oh good another person who is missing the point

Is is proposing rehabbing a Maximum allowable deduction
If you have that you dont need to argue over which deductions stay and which go

That is how you avoid all the lobbying over specific deductions.
 
2012-10-08 01:38:39 PM  

cchris_39: I love the way one poster decries the lack of specifics, and the next quantifies the impact for every income level.


Romneys plan does lack specifics, and the next poster quantifies the impact based on studies done on Romney's plan - which included many assumptions, most favorable to Romney and unrealistic. This lack of detail and having to draw conclusions based off of assumptions is the exact problem. This was much more eloquently stated here:

Sm3agol85: MugzyBrown: Why would Romney/Ryan release a list of deductions to be removed? Because they feel like giving Obama ammo to use against them? Every deduction will have a special interest group behind it.

Plus, the removal of deductions will be a negotiation with Ds and Rs in congress.

Asking for specifics at this point is either being idiotic or disingenuous

I have to make sure this gets brought up again this since is the kind of horrific derp that leads to people actually believing Romney's plan is feasible

Your point is exactly WHY Romney is a disingenuous douchebag about his tax plan. Most non-partisan studies show that his plan won't work even assuming a lot of things work out just right for Romney. Some right-wing studies show that with some extreme manipulation of the economy and number fudging, it could possibly, maybe, best case scenario in 100 years good, type thing, work out and actually be revenue neutral, and hence be "legit".

Facts: It will not work out. Congressman with large voters bases that rely on some of those deductions will fight against them. Others will dispute benefit decreases because they just don't agree with them. Some will not vote for them just because of party affiliations and disagreements. This virtually guarantees that his policy will not in any way possible be revenue neutral, or else will indeed increase taxes on the middle/lower class. This is why, in this situation, we DO NEED details. We need to know exactly what deductions he's planning on cutting out beforehand. Because if we don't know what his plan even is, then people will be voting based on an ideal dream instead of an actual policy. Would you still vote for Romney if you knew that his final tax policy would be 300 billion in the red? Or that middle class people would indeed be paying ~$2500 a year more in taxes to pick up the upper class slack?

 
2012-10-08 01:39:11 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Sm3agol85: MugzyBrown: Why would Romney/Ryan release a list of deductions to be removed? Because they feel like giving Obama ammo to use against them? Every deduction will have a special interest group behind it.

Plus, the removal of deductions will be a negotiation with Ds and Rs in congress.

Asking for specifics at this point is either being idiotic or disingenuous

I have to make sure this gets brought up again this since is the kind of horrific derp that leads to people actually believing Romney's plan is feasible

Your point is exactly WHY Romney is a disingenuous douchebag about his tax plan. Most non-partisan studies show that his plan won't work even assuming a lot of things work out just right for Romney. Some right-wing studies show that with some extreme manipulation of the economy and number fudging, it could possibly, maybe, best case scenario in 100 years good, type thing, work out and actually be revenue neutral, and hence be "legit".

Facts: It will not work out. Congressman with large voters bases that rely on some of those deductions will fight against them. Others will dispute benefit decreases because they just don't agree with them. Some will not vote for them just because of party affiliations and disagreements. This virtually guarantees that his policy will not in any way possible be revenue neutral, or else will indeed increase taxes on the middle/lower class. This is why, in this situation, we DO NEED details. We need to know exactly what deductions he's planning on cutting out beforehand. Because if we don't know what his plan even is, then people will be voting based on an ideal dream instead of an actual policy. Would you still vote for Romney if you knew that his final tax policy would be 300 billion in the red? Or that middle class people would indeed be paying ~$2500 a year more in taxes to pick up the upper class slack?

Oh good another person who is missing the point

Is is proposing rehabbing a Maximum allowable deduction
If you have that you dont need to argue over which deductions stay and which go

That is how you avoid all the lobbying over specific deductions.


Autocorrect gone crazy

Having Not rehabbing
 
2012-10-08 01:39:24 PM  

Tema213: GoodyearPimp: Look, we'll tell you how it works. Once you elect us.

"We need to pass the bill to find out what's in it" 

Both sides do it. Both sides are equally wrong. This isn't a "so vote Obama" or "so vote Romney issue. This is a this country desperately needs a viable 3rd party issue.


I'm not looking to have an argument about it or anything, at least not today... but perhaps examine how you think a third party would impact this problem, and whether it would mitigate or exacerbate it. I don't rightly care, or have time to care, what you think about the political system we have here today, but I hear that particular solution espoused a lot lately, and often without even a smidgeon of analysis. Just "I don't like party A OR party B, therefore Party C will be our solution." Just. Think about it.
 
2012-10-08 01:39:51 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: You can argue whether the study is accurate, but you can't argue the fact that 0bama lied about what it said.


Did you note the word 'concede'? It's subtle.

Concede - 2b (1) : to acknowledge grudgingly or hesitantly (conceded that it might be a good idea) (2) : to relinquish grudgingly or hesitantly (concede power)

Hint: Obama could still use the Rosen paper as evidence of a middle class tax hike if he disagrees with its premises or finds them untenable.

Of course, you're invited to put bigger context around the quote and show he meant otherwise. Or you could continue to mindlessly ape every criticism of Romney and fling it at his opponent.
 
2012-10-08 01:41:27 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Having Not rehabbing

Is is proposing having a...


Yeah your derp still derps.
 
2012-10-08 01:41:45 PM  
Lets all take a deep breath, relax, and then post.  Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
 
2012-10-08 01:42:21 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: amazing how many farkers are smart than a Princeton economist. Are you all Harvard or MIT economists?

"The main conclusion is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on high-income individuals about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral."


I think the problem we're running into is what constitutes upper income. The median household income in this country is about $40,000 a year, but both candidates have drawn the line for what constitutes the rich at the top marginal tax rate for a married household, about $250,000 a year. It's clear that the amount of tax credits available are outweighed by the total tax cuts offered in Romney's plan for those making over $250,000 a year, even if you assume impressive GDP growth. If you accept that all those who make 6 figures are upper income, it is possible to cover the tax cuts without increasing the tax burden of those making less than that.

Can we at least agree that the study says that?
 
2012-10-08 01:42:24 PM  

Unemployedingreenland: I am a small business owner (35 employees), and there is an absolute can't-miss sure fire way for me to reduce my tax bill - increase my payroll. In fact for every dollar I spend on payroll, my tax burden decreases about 45 cents. Of course, that 45 cent "gain" cost me $1, so I need to be sure I get more than 55 cents of additional benefit from that $1 spent on payroll.

Now, what would a true payroll-based (i.e., employment-based) incentive look like? Simple - give me a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for additional payroll expenses for a few years. Restrict it to non-family or officer employees so it's harder to game the system by paying my kids a salary (or giving them a bigger one). Give me 100% credit in 2013, 75% in 2014 (off the increase from the 2012 base), 50% in 2015, and 25% in 2016 so it sunsets.

As long as I'm profitable (and paying taxes to begin with), I would be indifferent (economically indifferent, that is) to increasing payroll next year through more hiring, better pay, bonuses, etc, (albeit less and less indifferent each year as it wound down). In other words, each dollar of payroll increase comes back to me in the form of a tax credit in 2013, so my hiring/increasing payroll decision is weighted heavily in favor of hiring/better pay - all I need to justify it is a few cents of increased revenue traceable to the higher payroll costs.

If a 100% credit is too favorable, scale it back - start at 75% instead (or whatever). Limit it to businesses with fewer than X employees (50?), and revenues of less than Y ($5MM?). I'll leave it to the quants to figure out where to set those variables, but this approach is a highly focused incentive to hire and increase pay for small business that already pay taxes (or at least their owners do). Is it cheaper than unemployment benefits (i.e., does the "lost" tax revenue exceed the unemployment benefit payouts)? Don't know, but it seems like it would be, and the intangibles are strong - more jobs for one th ...


This actually sounds like a pragmatic idea that could work. And in the politics tab to boot!

Small business gets a tax break for hiring, part of which would be made up by the employee paying tax and getting off the unemployment rolls.

But you can already see the Political Campaign Math for the next election cycle - Party A lowered taxes by 45 percent! Party B cries Party A raised taxes 25 percent a year for past 4 years.

And the voters get to see once again how a political party observing a policy collapses the waveform into their own reality.
 
2012-10-08 01:43:10 PM  
Romney's plan redux.

i457.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-08 01:44:10 PM  

Unemployedingreenland: I am a small business owner (35 employees), and there is an absolute can't-miss sure fire way for me to reduce my tax bill - increase my payroll. In fact for every dollar I spend on payroll, my tax burden decreases about 45 cents. Of course, that 45 cent "gain" cost me $1, so I need to be sure I get more than 55 cents of additional benefit from that $1 spent on payroll.

Now, what would a true payroll-based (i.e., employment-based) incentive look like? Simple - give me a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for additional payroll expenses for a few years. Restrict it to non-family or officer employees so it's harder to game the system by paying my kids a salary (or giving them a bigger one). Give me 100% credit in 2013, 75% in 2014 (off the increase from the 2012 base), 50% in 2015, and 25% in 2016 so it sunsets.

As long as I'm profitable (and paying taxes to begin with), I would be indifferent (economically indifferent, that is) to increasing payroll next year through more hiring, better pay, bonuses, etc, (albeit less and less indifferent each year as it wound down). In other words, each dollar of payroll increase comes back to me in the form of a tax credit in 2013, so my hiring/increasing payroll decision is weighted heavily in favor of hiring/better pay - all I need to justify it is a few cents of increased revenue traceable to the higher payroll costs.

If a 100% credit is too favorable, scale it back - start at 75% instead (or whatever). Limit it to businesses with fewer than X employees (50?), and revenues of less than Y ($5MM?). I'll leave it to the quants to figure out where to set those variables, but this approach is a highly focused incentive to hire and increase pay for small business that already pay taxes (or at least their owners do). Is it cheaper than unemployment benefits (i.e., does the "lost" tax revenue exceed the unemployment benefit payouts)? Don't know, but it seems like it would be, and the intangibles are strong - more jobs for one th ...


Holy shiat, this makes so much sense that it will never be tried.
 
2012-10-08 02:03:32 PM  
The truth is both sides are peddling assumed information because Romney's plan is simply incomplete. The difference is that Romney is basing his numbers off of completely unrealistic growth expectations while Obama is simply saying those expectations are ludicrous and is giving the more likely scenario. Both are fictions technically since, as I said, Romney's plan is incomplete. But of course because of this fact the false equivalency card is an easy play.
 
2012-10-08 02:13:45 PM  

mpirooz: The truth is both sides are peddling assumed information because Romney's plan is simply incomplete. The difference is that Romney is basing his numbers off of completely unrealistic growth expectations while Obama is simply saying those expectations are ludicrous and is giving the more likely scenario. Both are fictions technically since, as I said, Romney's plan is incomplete. But of course because of this fact the false equivalency card is an easy play.


Done in 162.

I can't figure out why more people don't realize this yet.
 
2012-10-08 02:32:27 PM  
"I can't tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work."

I don't understand, therefore wrong.
 
MFL
2012-10-08 02:36:22 PM  
mpirooz: The truth is both sides are peddling assumed information because Romney's plan is simply incomplete. The difference is that Romney is basing his numbers off of completely unrealistic growth expectations while Obama is simply saying those expectations are ludicrous and is giving the more likely scenario. Both are fictions technically since, as I said, Romney's plan is incomplete. But of course because of this fact the false equivalency card is an easy play.

If the last 4 years has taught us anything....it's that Barack Obama is probably the last person on the planet to ask about unrealistic growth expectations.
 
2012-10-08 02:36:39 PM  
Republican consultant Mike Murphy, a former Romney strategist, said on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday that it is unfair to criticize Mitt Romney's lack of specificity on how to pay for his proposed 20 percent income tax cut. Should Romney identify what loopholes he would cut to offset the tax cuts, Murphy argued, he would be criticized for doing so.

Murphy argued:

Here is the problem. You guys won't give him any credit for closing loopholes, because like you guys, he won't name the loopholes. Why? Because you'll attack him for doing it. You attack him for not giving you a little target... and then you attack him when you get the target.

Murphy's argument is that if Romney is transparent with the American people about what tax loopholes he would close to offset the roughly $5 trillion such a 20 percent tax cut would cost - those proposals might be subject to scrutiny and criticism.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/07/972501/gop-strategist-ad m its-romney-is-witholding-details-of-his-tax-plan-to-avoid-criticism/

This reminds me of the tax returns issue. "If we give you the details, you'll be able to criticize us!" It's kinds silly, in that the campaign is still getting scrutinized; why not show the details if the plan is so wonderful?
 
2012-10-08 02:39:12 PM  

MFL: mpirooz: The truth is both sides are peddling assumed information because Romney's plan is simply incomplete. The difference is that Romney is basing his numbers off of completely unrealistic growth expectations while Obama is simply saying those expectations are ludicrous and is giving the more likely scenario. Both are fictions technically since, as I said, Romney's plan is incomplete. But of course because of this fact the false equivalency card is an easy play.

If the last 4 years has taught us anything....it's that Barack Obama is probably the last person on the planet to ask about unrealistic growth expectations.


Yeah, stupid FartBummer trusted the GOP to do the right thing, or anything really (other than abortion bill introduction).

Why blame the GOP when you can blame O'Bumner? He's black, so it's historically appropriate if you forget the last 50 years.
 
2012-10-08 02:46:55 PM  

Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: NateGrey: spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.

Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

[x88.xanga.com image 438x342]

/Vote Republican

Obama farked up and lied about someones study....quick lets white knight him with distractions of government spending under republicans in a thread discussing tax policy and revenue!!!

He didn't lie. Quick let's pretend he did. LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!

Still looking for the lie

Do you know what reaching is?

"Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release.....

I can't tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.....


who to believe.....annonymous internet poster or economist responsble for the study.....


But these annoymous internet poster are quoting the mans work. The guy is mischaracterizing his own study like Romeny does his own tax plan.
 
2012-10-08 02:47:37 PM  

Unemployedingreenland: I am a small business owner (35 employees), and there is an absolute can't-miss sure fire way for me to reduce my tax bill - increase my payroll. In fact for every dollar I spend on payroll, my tax burden decreases about 45 cents. Of course, that 45 cent "gain" cost me $1, so I need to be sure I get more than 55 cents of additional benefit from that $1 spent on payroll.

Now, what would a true payroll-based (i.e., employment-based) incentive look like? Simple - give me a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for additional payroll expenses for a few years. Restrict it to non-family or officer employees so it's harder to game the system by paying my kids a salary (or giving them a bigger one). Give me 100% credit in 2013, 75% in 2014 (off the increase from the 2012 base), 50% in 2015, and 25% in 2016 so it sunsets.

As long as I'm profitable (and paying taxes to begin with), I would be indifferent (economically indifferent, that is) to increasing payroll next year through more hiring, better pay, bonuses, etc, (albeit less and less indifferent each year as it wound down). In other words, each dollar of payroll increase comes back to me in the form of a tax credit in 2013, so my hiring/increasing payroll decision is weighted heavily in favor of hiring/better pay - all I need to justify it is a few cents of increased revenue traceable to the higher payroll costs.

If a 100% credit is too favorable, scale it back - start at 75% instead (or whatever). Limit it to businesses with fewer than X employees (50?), and revenues of less than Y ($5MM?). I'll leave it to the quants to figure out where to set those variables, but this approach is a highly focused incentive to hire and increase pay for small business that already pay taxes (or at least their owners do). Is it cheaper than unemployment benefits (i.e., does the "lost" tax revenue exceed the unemployment benefit payouts)? Don't know, but it seems like it would be, and the intangibles are strong - more jobs for one th ...


Good thoughtful post, thanks for taking the time. And an interesting idea as well.

Not a business owner myslef, but it would seem to me there would be a big difference depending on whether your employees were hourly and not all full-time, vs. (say) 35 full-time salaried professionals with benefits. What is your feeling of the calculus there? Also if I may ask; what state is your business located in?
 
2012-10-08 02:52:45 PM  

LeftOfLiberal: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: NateGrey: spongeboob: You left out the increase in the national debt under Reagan, but lets skip that and just show me a citiation for the increased tax burden on the wealthy under Reagan.

Republicans like to pretend it never happened.

[x88.xanga.com image 438x342]

/Vote Republican

Obama farked up and lied about someones study....quick lets white knight him with distractions of government spending under republicans in a thread discussing tax policy and revenue!!!

He didn't lie. Quick let's pretend he did. LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!

Still looking for the lie

Do you know what reaching is?

"Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release.....

I can't tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.....


who to believe.....annonymous internet poster or economist responsble for the study.....

But these annoymous internet poster are quoting the mans work. The guy is mischaracterizing his own study like Romeny does his own tax plan.


hey, at least everyone now apparently agrees that $200,000 is middle class so we got that going for us.
 
2012-10-08 02:58:12 PM  

LibertyHiller: Holy shiat, this makes so much sense that it will never be tried.


No. That's a farking terrible idea. It's the same failed supply side economics with a different veneer. It assumes what is keeping small businesses from hiring is money. That is we just give job creators small businesses a little bit more money, a few more incentives, they'll go on a hiring spree that will leave us drowning in jobs.
No more. Demand drives the economy. We need demand. When people are demanding your product, you hire more workers to meet the demand.
 
2012-10-08 03:00:52 PM  
www.popcrunch.com

"I'm going to get fired this November"
 
2012-10-08 03:01:13 PM  

CPennypacker: The only studies that say Romney's plan can be revenue neutral and not hit the middle class assume the plan will create growth

Tax cuts do not create growth

Romney's plan is tax cuts

So . . .


Even Keynesian economical state they do. Cbo models state this. Obama's economic team stated this during stimulus debates. Are you actually arguing against accepted economic theory? The fact is the tax policy center report made an assumption of zero effects on growth to achieve their numbers, as well as other idiotic assumptions, against established economic theories from all sides.
 
2012-10-08 03:07:06 PM  

Saiga410: sprawl15: Keep in mind, I'm also assuming that Rosen's assumptions are totally 100% true for consistency

I dont have a dog in this hunt. The amusing thing for me it is the stupidity of many farkers that gets me. There are plenty of people who have posted the studies finding for 200k+ and 100k to 200k but are unable to do the simple math to find out the sub 100k if this is revenue neutral.


That 'simple math' isn't simple, based on the farking scope of the study. The purpose of Rosen's study is to look at the assumption that taxes on the middle/lower classes must go up based on the 'hole' in revenue from lowering taxes on the upper classes. No matter which way you find, it doesn't assert that taxes on sub $100k incomes will raise or decrease. If Romney's plan included a specific, targeted plan that only hit people sub $100k, it wouldn't be involved in Rosen's math whatsoever because it has nothing to do with what he's looking at.

You'd know that if you paid the slightest bit of attention, instead of just smugly snickering at what you apparently don't understand.

Grungehamster: If you accept that all those who make 6 figures are upper income, it is possible to cover the tax cuts without increasing the tax burden of those making less than that.


Slight change in wording: the studies state that it is possible to cover the tax cuts for people making 6 figures without increasing the tax burden of those making less than that. It makes no claims whatsoever on tax cuts/burdens specific to people making less than 6 figures.

Moderator: Lets all take a deep breath, relax, and then post.  Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.


You must be new here.
 
2012-10-08 03:16:06 PM  
It's not meaningfully raising taxes on the rich and it's not shown to be cutting anywhere near enough government services to make up the difference. Therefor the only conclusion is that he's raising taxes on everyone else, or he's the one who stole Obama's magical unicorn.
 
2012-10-08 03:21:15 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: LibertyHiller: Holy shiat, this makes so much sense that it will never be tried.

No. That's a farking terrible idea. It's the same failed supply side economics with a different veneer. It assumes what is keeping small businesses from hiring is money. That is we just give job creators small businesses a little bit more money, a few more incentives, they'll go on a hiring spree that will leave us drowning in jobs.
No more. Demand drives the economy. We need demand. When people are demanding your product, you hire more workers to meet the demand.


I'm not one to call anyone out without knowing their background or experience, but either you're just reacting without thinking or you don't understand the proposal. Take a minute and bear with me...

Two things:

1. This directly address demand by spreading $$$ among the employed class (not the employer class). Employees are the beneficiary here - the small business owner doesn't get anything out of this unless business picks up. THERE'S NO TAX BREAK UNLESS THERE'S HIRING OR MORE PAY, and then the tax break is dollar-for-dollar - so instead of paying $50 in taxes and $50 in payroll, I'd pay $75 in payroll and $25 in taxes, but I've paid the same $100. I don't come out ahead unless my business grows (which is the only way to sustain the increased hiring anyway, so it's what we're all rooting for). It's not a "give it to the rich without restrictions and hope they'll use it to hire" scheme. If you don't increase payroll, you see NO benefit.

2. It's specifically targeted to tax-paying small business with employees with modest salaries/hourly wages. There's a big difference between big businesses not hiring and small businesses not hiring - big businesses (generally) are sitting on huge piles of cash and aren't hiring because they don't have to. Plain and simple. Small businesses (at least some) aren't hiring because they cannot afford the risk of being wrong - if I increase payroll and demand doesn't pick up, I'm screwed - I just don't have the cushion or the margins, so I can't take the chance without having the demand in front of may face (and the cash flow). You want me to favor hiring over not hiring, and the best way to do that is to take at least some of the risk of hiring away. This does that.

Not sure why you would lump this in with "the same old failed supply side policies", lament a lack of demand, and not understand how this addresses both issues.
 
2012-10-08 03:28:13 PM  

Flaming Yawn: If a 100% credit is too favorable, scale it back - start at 75% instead (or whatever). Limit it to businesses with fewer than X employees (50?), and revenues of less than Y ($5MM?). I'll leave it to the quants to figure out where to set those variables, but this approach is a highly focused incentive to hire and increase pay for small business that already pay taxes (or at least their owners do). Is it cheaper than unemployment benefits (i.e., does the "lost" tax revenue exceed the unemployment benefit payouts)? Don't know, but it seems like it would be, and the intangibles are strong - more jobs for one th ...

Good thoughtful post, thanks for taking the time. And an interesting idea as well.

Not a business owner myslef, but it would seem to me there would be a big difference depending on whether your employees were hourly and not all full-time, vs. (say) 35 full-time salaried professionals with benefits. What is your feeling of the calculus there? Also if I may ask; what state is your business located in?


Located in Maryland. There's certainly a difference depending on how employees are compensated, but the overall effect is to increase payroll, whether that's by hiring more employees or increasing everyone's base pay, or adding bonuses to the mix. I can't calculate this on the macro level, but on a business-by-business level, this should at the very least put more cash in the hands of lower-compensated workers. Craft it so that you can't include anyone who's total compensation reaches the Social Security contribution limit (or some other number - just picked SSI because it gets tracked already) if you don't want to include high-compensation employees (since presumably they're doing OK already).
 
2012-10-08 03:36:28 PM  
"a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same"

Oh well thats good. Thats just fine. Thats the most important thing. And there were people worrying that real people might be impacted. Turns out the real people would not have a problem, only the plebs.
 
2012-10-08 03:43:15 PM  

gaspode: Oh well thats good. Thats just fine. Thats the most important thing.


The assertion by the TPC (and Obama) was that the tax cuts to the rich would create a hole of spending that would require tax increases on the middle/lower classes to remain deficit neutral. If it could be shown that this 'hole' wouldn't exist, it would undermine that argument.
 
MFL
2012-10-08 03:54:35 PM  
randomjsa: Again we have the liberals saying "When we voted for Obama we expected no details on anything and neither should you. He didn't even live up to his promise to have the health care debate in public. Now we expect Romney/Ryan to release every single solitary detail of everything they want to do... Or they're hiding something!"

The implicit premise of his 2008 victory was that if you voted for Barack Obama you were not just making a choice between two candidates but making history, changing history, affirming something high and grand and noble. A vote for him elevated you......

"Generations from now,we will be able to tell our children that this was the moment. . . that the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." LOL

But no human being could live up to such preposterous expectations, and no human being should ever believe anything so absurd about himself. But Obama and his toadies actually do. But the fact of the matter is on that stage man to man where there is a limited media filter it took about 30 seconds to see what guy was more impressive.

Barack Obama is going to let all of you down.
 
2012-10-08 04:00:24 PM  

MFL: randomjsa: Again we have the liberals saying "When we voted for Obama we expected no details on anything and neither should you. He didn't even live up to his promise to have the health care debate in public. Now we expect Romney/Ryan to release every single solitary detail of everything they want to do... Or they're hiding something!"

The implicit premise of his 2008 victory was that if you voted for Barack Obama you were not just making a choice between two candidates but making history, changing history, affirming something high and grand and noble. A vote for him elevated you......

"Generations from now,we will be able to tell our children that this was the moment. . . that the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." LOL

But no human being could live up to such preposterous expectations, and no human being should ever believe anything so absurd about himself. But Obama and his toadies actually do. But the fact of the matter is on that stage man to man where there is a limited media filter it took about 30 seconds to see what guy was more impressive.

Barack Obama is going to let all of you down.


Really? I'm doing fine. Thanks for asking!

Looks like he's driven you to trolling, so I guess you can discredit Fartbummer on that one. Well, I guess personal responsibility isn't for everyone!
 
2012-10-08 04:15:52 PM  
Subby: "Thank you Mr. Obama..."

Hey shiatmitter you spelled "President" wrong.

/your president is black, deal with it
//asshole
 
2012-10-08 04:31:27 PM  

MayoSlather: FTA: "The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same."

Nice exact language there, sounds completely accurate and factual...Or in other non-euphemistic terms "in a made up scenario that has no current basis in reality, something like this might work"

The dismal science indeed.


You mean just like the original tax policy center report? The report based on assumptions? Tell me more.
 
2012-10-08 04:36:13 PM  

MyRandomName: MayoSlather: FTA: "The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same."

Nice exact language there, sounds completely accurate and factual...Or in other non-euphemistic terms "in a made up scenario that has no current basis in reality, something like this might work"

The dismal science indeed.

You mean just like the original tax policy center report? The report based on assumptions? Tell me more.


No you tell me more...wtf are you talking about?
 
2012-10-08 04:48:04 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: What I don't get is how a revenue-neutral reshuffling of the tax code is supposed to do the economy any good.


This!! Why bother with any change if it is "revenue neutral?" Why go to all that trouble if nothing is going to (net) change? This is what I don't get about when The R & R twins "justify" their plan.
 
2012-10-08 05:05:38 PM  

MyRandomName: MayoSlather: FTA: "The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same."

Nice exact language there, sounds completely accurate and factual...Or in other non-euphemistic terms "in a made up scenario that has no current basis in reality, something like this might work"

The dismal science indeed.

You mean just like the original tax policy center report? The report based on assumptions? Tell me more.


So what you're saying is that since Mitt Romney's tax plan is vague as f*ck, we can't actually tell WHAT he wants to do?

Somehow that's better?
 
2012-10-08 05:14:09 PM  

sprawl15: gaspode: Oh well thats good. Thats just fine. Thats the most important thing.

The assertion by the TPC (and Obama) was that the tax cuts to the rich would create a hole of spending that would require tax increases on the middle/lower classes to remain deficit neutral. If it could be shown that this 'hole' wouldn't exist, it would undermine that argument.


Yes but all this says is that people earning over 200K wouldnt pay more. Not the point at issue which is lower/middle earners.
 
2012-10-08 05:17:35 PM  

gaspode: Not the point at issue which is lower/middle earners.


That isn't the point at issue. I just explained it to you.
 
2012-10-08 05:28:52 PM  
<i>The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral. </i>

Maybe it's me, and it probably is, but this makes no sense. How does the burden on those making $200K and above stay the same with no change to those below 200K, who are the lower and middle class? Of course, he doesn't say just what those "plausible" assumptions are so it can be determined if the assumptions are indeed plausible. And again, how does revenue neutral address the deficit problem? It appears that the deficit ill have to be addressed thorugh spending cuts only and since Romney wants to increase defense spending it's going to take more than eliminating Big Bird to have an impact.
 
2012-10-08 05:29:30 PM  
I read this guy's paper. It doesn't say what he says it does and it certainly doesn't say what The Weekly Standard says it does. His numbers don't even match his conclusions. True, he doesn't say Romney will have to increase taxes on the middle class, but even his most optimistic estimates of increased revenue from economic growth fall way short of covering the loss in revenue of the proposed tax cuts. He doesn't suggest that that deficit would be covered by increasing taxes on the middle class... but based on Romney's own pledges about his tax plan, where else could it come from?
 
2012-10-08 05:36:23 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: LibertyHiller: Holy shiat, this makes so much sense that it will never be tried.

No. That's a farking terrible idea. It's the same failed supply side economics with a different veneer. It assumes what is keeping small businesses from hiring is money. That is we just give job creators small businesses a little bit more money, a few more incentives, they'll go on a hiring spree that will leave us drowning in jobs.
No more. Demand drives the economy. We need demand. When people are demanding your product, you hire more workers to meet the demand.


That may be true in the long run but in the short run, which is what this plan is aimed at, businesses are finding that they can run their remaining workers ragged. This is giving employers a choice: they can pay an employee and get a tax credit, or they can keep on short-staffing and pay more in taxes. That way, when the demand hits, they're already staffed up.

Is this going to be a universal solution? No, and I'm sure it needs some deeper examination to identify other flaws, but it's a helluva lot more imaginative than anything I've heard our professional politicians suggest.
 
2012-10-08 05:56:07 PM  
The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.

So he wont tell us how he intends to make the math work and we are supposed to have faith that he will increase taxes only on the wealthy? Seems likely!
 
2012-10-08 06:11:24 PM  

Unemployedingreenland: if I increase payroll and demand doesn't pick up, I'm screwed


LibertyHiller: That way, when the demand hits, they're already staffed up.


Guys.
Stop with the supply side economics.
It. Doesn't. Work.

We increase demand first, and both of your arguments disappear.
 
2012-10-08 06:11:38 PM  

Crapinoleum: BarkingUnicorn: What I don't get is how a revenue-neutral reshuffling of the tax code is supposed to do the economy any good.

This!! Why bother with any change if it is "revenue neutral?" Why go to all that trouble if nothing is going to (net) change? This is what I don't get about when The R & R twins "justify" their plan.


runwiz: <i>The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral. </i>

Maybe it's me, and it probably is, but this makes no sense. How does the burden on those making $200K and above stay the same with no change to those below 200K, who are the lower and middle class? Of course, he doesn't say just what those "plausible" assumptions are so it can be determined if the assumptions are indeed plausible. And again, how does revenue neutral address the deficit problem? It appears that the deficit ill have to be addressed thorugh spending cuts only and since Romney wants to increase defense spending it's going to take more than eliminating Big Bird to have an impact.


What I imagine is supposed to happen is that the rich get a tax cut, which they use to somehow spur the economy so much as to take in more tax revenue(would that make it not revenue neutral?) to combat the debt, get more people to work, and other pie in the sky fantasies that have been shown throughout history to not actually work that way.
 
2012-10-08 07:01:32 PM  

coeyagi: Barack Obama is going to let all of you down.

Really? I'm doing fine. Thanks for asking!


You must have pretty damn low standards if you are fine.
 
2012-10-08 07:07:11 PM  

OgreMagi: coeyagi: Barack Obama is going to let all of you down.

Really? I'm doing fine. Thanks for asking!

You must have pretty damn low standards if you are fine.


Really? I'm making $10,000 more than I was 4 years ago and I've had 2 promotions. Is that low standards?
 
2012-10-08 07:13:43 PM  
images.fungopher.com
 
2012-10-08 09:16:31 PM  

OgreMagi: coeyagi: Barack Obama is going to let all of you down.

Really? I'm doing fine. Thanks for asking!

You must have pretty damn low standards if you are fine.


Ah, I see you don't actually have any investments. Too bad, those of us that bought stocks when Obama was elected are doing pretty well. My wife and I have better jobs than we had 4 years ago too. Yep, it's terrible. It'd be better without Republicans trying to tank the economy for political gain, but 25% annual return has been pretty OK.
 
2012-10-08 09:44:32 PM  

randomjsa: Again we have the liberals saying "When we voted for Obama we expected no details on anything and neither should you. He didn't even live up to his promise to have the health care debate in public. Now we expect Romney/Ryan to release every single solitary detail of everything they want to do... Or they're hiding something!"


Who are quoting there? Are you making shiat up?

And, yes. If Romney is so reluctant to release his policy details then I suspect he either has no policy or he's hiding something.
 
2012-10-08 09:46:59 PM  

CPennypacker: The only studies that say Romney's plan can be revenue neutral and not hit the middle class assume the plan will create growth

Tax cuts do not create growth

Romney's plan is tax cuts

So . . .


Tax cuts can create growth if they lead to increased consumption (spending). But the problem is that so many of our consumer goods are now made in China, that the growth increase will be in China rather than in the US.
 
2012-10-08 09:48:53 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: randomjsa: Again we have the liberals saying "When we voted for Obama we expected no details on anything and neither should you. He didn't even live up to his promise to have the health care debate in public. Now we expect Romney/Ryan to release every single solitary detail of everything they want to do... Or they're hiding something!"

Oh and don't forget now that 0bama has been in office for almost 4 years he still doesn't need to release details

Just tell us another story about your grandma or a person you met on the campaign


Release details of what?

By the way, spelling Obama with a zero makes you look like an idiot.
 
2012-10-08 09:55:16 PM  

MugzyBrown: Why would Romney/Ryan release a list of deductions to be removed? Because they feel like giving Obama ammo to use against them? Every deduction will have a special interest group behind it.

Plus, the removal of deductions will be a negotiation with Ds and Rs in congress.

Asking for specifics at this point is either being idiotic or disingenuous


Negotiation in congress. Yeah, that's a hot one.

Also, a politician running for office who refuses to give policy details is either being idiotic or disingenuous.
 
2012-10-08 10:01:09 PM  

Giltric: kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.

Why should taxpayers subsidize your home ownership or breeding?


Maybe they shouldn't. Then again maybe tax payers shouldn't be subsidizing a lot of other things too. Like invading weaker countries or subsidizing the highly profitable oil industry.

In any case, voters have a right and an expectation to know what the candidates policies are before the election. Otherwise, why would they vote for someone who is afraid to say exactly what he has in mind?
 
2012-10-08 10:59:15 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Unemployedingreenland: if I increase payroll and demand doesn't pick up, I'm screwed

LibertyHiller: That way, when the demand hits, they're already staffed up.

Guys.
Stop with the supply side economics.
It. Doesn't. Work.

We increase demand first, and both of your arguments disappear.


How do you increase demand without increasing the number decent-paying jobs? Putting people back to work, which is the object of this plan, is a fairly good way of stimulating demand. I know that I'm more likely to consume, and thereby creating demand, when I have a steady paycheck than I am when I'm on UI and/or scrambling for freelance work.

For the last four years, ordinary consumers (and their demand is what drives our economy) have had a massive disincentive to consume, or have simply been unable to afford consumption, which is a big reason why the economy is in the toilet.

kg2095: Tax cuts can create growth if they lead to increased consumption (spending). But the problem is that so many of our consumer goods are now made in China, that the growth increase will be in China rather than in the US.


The people whose taxes need to be cut are those under $75,000 (give or take) because they make up the overwhelming majority of households. That's also likely to stimulate demand, because those people will have more disposable income. The growth happens here and in China, Mexico, wherever.

Remember that consumption taxes are a big source of revenue for state and local governments as well. The collapse of 2008-09 punched a hole in those budgets that will take years to recover from.
 
2012-10-09 12:08:57 AM  

LibertyHiller: How do you increase demand without increasing the number decent-paying jobs?


Stimulus, direct or indirect.
Writing off mortgages. Student loan forgiveness. Single Payer health insurance. If tax cuts are to be had, not a dime to business, all of it to consumers with the highest likelihood to spend.
But that's besides the point. The original idea was another example of failed supply-side economics. We can't give businesses incentives to prepare for demand that isn't going to materialize. A farmer trying to water his crops during a drought gains nothing by buying a bigger hose.

LibertyHiller: The people whose taxes need to be cut are those under $75,000 (give or take) because they make up the overwhelming majority of households. That's also likely to stimulate demand, because those people will have more disposable income.


This I agree with, but as I said above, business doesn't need a dime. They can get it from the consumers once they consumers..... consume. Giving incentives directly to the business is skipping a key step.
We slap some import tariffs on countries with poor working conditions and human rights violations, we can have the economy back on track in no time. Hell, if we could bail out Europe by ourselves if we penalized China for their psuedo-slave labor and instead looked to the social democracies of Europe that wouldn't be subjected to the tariff.
 
2012-10-09 12:14:52 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: They can get it from the consumers once they consumers..... consume.


FTFM
/CONSUME
 
2012-10-09 12:56:35 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Another 0bama lie
That is all he did in the debate. Well, besides look down at the podium a lot.

Romney has been playing the long game and had 0bama rope a doped into thinking he was debating the characterture that 0bama created (no regulation, killing a woman because she lost her insurance, giving 5t in tax breaks to the rich, eating a dog, etc)


You are completely devoid of originality and creativity. You keep using "rope a dope" knowing full well another Fark poster first used it against Romney, and IT WORKED. You are simply very irritating individual who is nothing but a biter. Romney got played at the last debate, and you are desperate to try to spin that away. Romney came out, had diarrhea of the mouth, said all sorts of EASILY debunked lies, and PUT IT ALL ON TAPE. He's the big sucker in this game. Now his own people are going to spin themselves into a death spiral trying to explain or distance themselves from his BS. Even your dumbass is caught up in it, so who's the dope now?

Romney "roped a dope" alright, and it was you, Ass.

For fark's sake......try to at least be original instead of being a biter. and a liar. And stupid. And irritating.
 
2012-10-09 08:04:22 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: LibertyHiller: How do you increase demand without increasing the number decent-paying jobs?

Stimulus, direct or indirect.
Writing off mortgages. Student loan forgiveness. Single Payer health insurance. If tax cuts are to be had, not a dime to business, all of it to consumers with the highest likelihood to spend.
But that's besides the point. The original idea was another example of failed supply-side economics. We can't give businesses incentives to prepare for demand that isn't going to materialize. A farmer trying to water his crops during a drought gains nothing by buying a bigger hose.

LibertyHiller: The people whose taxes need to be cut are those under $75,000 (give or take) because they make up the overwhelming majority of households. That's also likely to stimulate demand, because those people will have more disposable income.

This I agree with, but as I said above, business doesn't need a dime. They can get it from the consumers once they consumers..... consume. Giving incentives directly to the business is skipping a key step.
We slap some import tariffs on countries with poor working conditions and human rights violations, we can have the economy back on track in no time. Hell, if we could bail out Europe by ourselves if we penalized China for their psuedo-slave labor and instead looked to the social democracies of Europe that wouldn't be subjected to the tariff.


I don't disagree with you about a direct stimulus, especially mortgage and student loan "forgiveness," although I don't suppose you are suggesting that the government pay the holders of the notes on the loans, just that the banks and other investors simply agree to write off what's owed. Not sure how you would pull that off. If you're suggesting that the stimulus be used to pay off these loans, then the money is going straight to the banks and other note holders, correct? Maybe it flows through the hands of the borrower, but unless the debt is simply washed away, the banks get the money. Seems just like a TARP approach in broad strokes.

I also have no issue with a single payer system in health care (for the record).

That said, I don't get your beef (other than a general disdain for anything characterized as a "tax break"). Your analogy about a farmer watering his crops isn't accurate here. It would be more accurate to think about it as a thousand farmers who have an incentive to hire tens of thousands of farm hands whose families will purchase more fruit, vegetables, bread, and dairy in the local markets now that they have a larger, more stable income. Right now, the farmer can't sell his crops because the local community doesn't have the money to purchase them at a number that enables the farmer to make a profit. If the local community gets more jobs en masse, there is a much stronger demand for crops. Of course, each farmer could decide to hire more people spontaneously, and the effect would be largely the same, but giving an incentive for them to act more or less collectively has a huge impact on the overall economic impact and removes a lot of each individual farmer's risk that their increased payroll won't bring them closer to the brink.  And believe me, there are many, many small business on the brink who are in serious hunker down mode - don't spend unless you have no other choice. Big companies aren't in that position (generally), but at the local level, at least around here, they certainly are.
 
2012-10-09 12:24:40 PM  

Unemployedingreenland: Maybe it flows through the hands of the borrower, but unless the debt is simply washed away, the banks get the money.


The idea is that the people have income that becomes disposable once it's no longer servicing debt. How to go about it is another discussion.

Unemployedingreenland: It would be more accurate to think about it as a thousand farmers who have an incentive to hire tens of thousands of farm hands whose families will purchase more fruit, vegetables, bread, and dairy in the local markets now that they have a larger, more stable income.


No. That's not more accurate at all. I'm telling you, this is supply side nonsense. Businesses hire as many people as it takes to get the job done, to meet the demands of their customers. Until that demand increases, all the incentives to hire in the world are just at best misdirected, at worst wasted, efforts. The only incentive a business needs is "Consumers want your product." and to get that, consumers need money. Giving money directly to consumers, or at least ensuring they have disposable income, is worlds better than incentivizing businesses to hire for demand that may never materialize. Make sure the demand is there, and business will rush to meet it.
This is what I meant with the farmer and the hose: If demand is water, there's no use buying a bigger hose (expanding your workforce) if there's a drought. The extra capacity is wasted. If you're any kind of businessman, you won't hire people just to stand around. You'd just be wasting your money. Money used to subsidize your hiring would be wasted. If done on a large enough scale, yes, it will lead to demand as people get disposable income, but it's still a terrible, misdirected way to do so. Again, it comes down to demand. If demand for your product doubles, you rush to meet it or lose that business to a competitor. There's your incentive.
 
Displayed 209 of 209 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report