Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Mitt Romney's One Point Plan; For Job Stagnation
Topic Started: Oct 21 2012, 09:48 PM (531 Views)
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Think Progress
 
Everyone Else Pays More So the Wealthy Can Pay Even Less

First, Mitt Romney had 59-point plan. Lately, he’s been touting a 5-point plan.

But the truth is that Mitt Romney really just has 1-point plan: Make everyone else pay more so the wealthy and huge corporations like Big Oil can pay even less.

What does this 1-point plan mean in practice?

•A $2,000 tax increase for middle class families so every millionaire can get a new $87,000 tax cut.

•Current seniors pay $11,100 more for their health care so the five largest oil companies get a new $2.3 BILLION annual tax cut.

•A 29 year-old would pay a whopping $331,000 for their health care in retirement so Romney’s single largest donor can have a $2.3+ BILLION tax cut (yes, you read that right).

•Women lose their no-cost birth control benefit so corporations can keep existing tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas and get billions in new incentives to outsource American jobs.

•Over 1 MILLION students will lose their Pell Grants so the corporate tax rate can be slashed by almost one-third.

And so on and so forth. You get the picture and it’s not a pretty one.

Worse yet?

Romney’s reverse Robin Hood plan won’t create jobs and won’t grow the economy. As we discussed earlier this week, Romney’s plan would, at best, dramatically slow the recovery and could kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and throw the economy back into recession.

Posted Image

How are we so sure about this? We’ve tried Romney’s 1-point plan before and it didn’t work. In fact, the plan Romney is advocating solely consists of the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place — only worse.

We know from experience that lower marginal tax rates don’t create economic growth. In fact, the opposite seems to be true.

Posted Image

And lower marginal tax rates don’t create jobs either.

Posted Image

BOTTOM LINE: The middle class simply cannot afford Mitt Romney’s 1-point plan to make them pay more so the wealthy and corporations can pay even less.
LINK
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I think the real mystery will be what will happen if Mitt is elected. Has he been scamming the far right, and return to his moderate roots? With 47% of filers paying no federal income tax and millionaires paying 10-15% income tax a 20% tax cut seems crazy. Is it just a political ploy? The economy may just continue getting better on it's own anyway. Would they use that to proclaim it was the tax cuts. At some point in time maybe we will just cut appreciation checks to the wealthy for giving us minimum wage jobs?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Your point that the economy may continue to improve at least to some extent no matter who's in office is a good one.

And so is your concern that the US Right will claim it was Romney's policies that produced the uptick, which will make them want to continue the same bad ideas.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Yeah, like the Republicans need encouragement for bad ideas. Dumbasses.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I really think you guys are getting all riled up about nothing. Mitt is a moderate and experienced one at that. He will probably follow the same formula he used in his governorship. He brought into the government some colleagues from his business days. Came up with a list of priorities. Gathered together the interest groups from both major parties. And went about crafting legislation and tweaking programs. End result. The state lead the nation in education. A somewhat workable solution to healthcare needs was found. Economic development bloomed. And the state was running on all 8 cylinders when he left office.

The man has been a success in life, so why would you think anything would change along those lines, if he wins the presidency. I think, and I know you disagree, that the current president is the one to be weary of.
Edited by Pat, Oct 22 2012, 01:36 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Berton
Member Avatar
Thunder Fan
[ * ]
The truth about Romney's tax plan, but I doubt the left wing ideologues on this board want to read it.


We are in the midst of yet another great American discussion about taxation. Perhaps no policy area has become more sensitive or controversial. At stake are two vital concerns for the American future: How will we generate sufficient revenue to balance our budget without discouraging economic activity, and will the burden of taxation fall equitably on all Americans?

Tax policy shapes almost everything individuals and enterprises do as they participate in the economy. With bad design, tax policy can discourage economic activity. With good design, it can encourage it. Yet our current tax system is an accretion of decades of patchwork decisions that came into being with no systematic thought for their implications for job creation or economic growth. Every year, individual taxpayers are forced to confront a Rube Goldberg contraption of bewildering complexity that leads to a range of undesirable outcomes, including the fact that millions of Americans have to pay hundreds of dollars to have their tax returns prepared by a professional who understands the rules. Corporations, for their part, are subject to rules and regulations that all too often encourage tax gamesmanship while discouraging reinvestment in the American economy.

Obama's Failure


In approaching the nation’s fiscal challenges, President Obama has repeatedly called for a “balanced approach,” by which he means cutting spending but also raising taxes. That may sound appealing on the surface. However, the reality is that before President Obama exploded the size of the federal government, our existing tax rates were more or less adequate to pay for the government we needed. President Obama claims now to be offering a compromise. In fact, by undoing only some of the harm he has inflicted on our fiscal health over the past three years, he would ratchet up permanently the size of government and the tax burden on the American people.

President Obama’s proclivity for fostering uncertainty about the long-term shape of the tax code is particularly troublesome. He has embraced one temporary solution after the next while rejecting permanent adjustments that would bring some predictability and stability to investment decision-making. The result is a business climate marked by hesitation. When President Obama complains about banks refusing to lend and businesses refusing to hire, he should consider the impact of his own policies on that state of affairs.

No discussion of President Obama’s tax policies would be complete without a reference to Obamacare and its $500 billion in tax increases. Whenever President Obama discusses the need for more tax revenues, Americans should remember that he already got them and spent them on a health care scheme that is itself proving to be hugely disruptive to the economy.

Mitt's Plan


Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the nation’s tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation’s tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.

Individual Taxes

America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

•Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
•Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate the Death Tax
•Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

•Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
•Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
•Switch to a territorial tax system
•Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Full PDF Report
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Oct 22 2012, 01:35 AM
I really think you guys are getting all riled up about nothing. Mitt is a moderate and experienced one at that. He will probably follow the same formula he used in his governorship. He brought into the government some colleagues from his business days. Came up with a list of priorities. Gathered together the interest groups from both major parties. And went about crafting legislation and tweaking programs. End result. The state lead the nation in education. A somewhat workable solution to healthcare needs was found. Economic development bloomed. And the state was running on all 8 cylinders when he left office.

The man has been a success in life, so why would you think anything would change along those lines, if he wins the presidency. I think, and I know you disagree, that the current president is the one to be weary of.
Are you serious? Romneys approval rating when he left office was a miserable 33% . Here's a little article from Boston.com that tells the real story behind Romneys "success" as governor.

"Like Obama, Romney could also point to an economy that was much improved from the worst of the recession. But, as with the US economy today, progress was slow, painstaking, and for many, disappointing.

At the end of his term, Romney could claim a small net job gain and a lower unemployment rate, but the pace of job growth lagged the nation badly and only a huge outflow of Massachusetts workers to faster growing states kept the unemployment rate from climbing higher.

It is not quite the image of a turnaround painted by Romney’s presidential campaign."


here
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I agree with Pat that he is essentially a moderate, but I doubt he will allowed to pull his own strings.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
If by moderate you mean the average of all his varied positions ends up somewhere in the middle, maybe you're correct.

Or maybe you mean that his success in Mass. was moderate, which from what I've heard is being very generous.

But as Paul says, the real danger is not Mitt, it's all the extremists he's beholden to.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis