According to the Brookings Institution, Romney's tax plan would actually increase taxes for 95 percent of the population.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/study-romney-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
It would be amount to an average of $500.00 per household.
I expect there will be accusations that Brookings is left wing, etc., but we're talking about an organzation which backed many of Bush's policies, and influenced policy towards deregulation, welfare reform, etc.
Obama will be pushing the issue today. Welcome home Mitt!
And it came down. This could direct the narrative of the campaign for the next week or two.
President Obama: "But here's the thing –- he's not asking you to contribute more to pay down the deficit, or to invest in our kids' education. He's asking you to pay more so that people like him can get a tax cut."
Originally posted by KunsooAs far as I can see, neither candidate is proposing a tax cut for anyone. Neither is either of them proposing a tax increase of any significance.
And it came down. This could direct the narrative of the campaign for the next week or two.
President Obama: "But here's the thing –- he's not asking you to contribute more to pay down the deficit, or to invest in our kids' education. He's asking you to pay more so that people like him can get a tax cut."
Originally posted by Kunsoo"pay down the deficit, or to invest in our kids' education."
And it came down. This could direct the narrative of the campaign for the next week or two.
President Obama: "But here's the thing –- he's not asking you to contribute more to pay down the deficit, or to invest in our kids' education. He's asking you to pay more so that people like him can get a tax cut."
This makes me cringe every time I hear it. We spend more and more on "our kid's education" and get less and less in return.
The deficit is never "paid down", nor can it be because a deficit is just a budgetary estimate of overspending. It isn't real. What is real is the debt that continued deficit spending creates, and that can and must be paid down. If it isn't at some point the interest on the debt will equal or exceed all revenues, and leave nothing for social programs, defence or anything else.
Originally posted by normbenignActually, we really don't get less in return where we spend money. New York is a great example of that. Where we're failing is where we pass laws which prohibit raising revenues for schools, as in California where Proposition 13 pulled us from the top five educational systems to the lower ten in terms of performance - in less than a decade.
"pay down the deficit, or to invest in our kids' education."
This makes me cringe every time I hear it. We spend more and more on "our kid's education" and get less and less in return.
The deficit is never "paid down", nor can it be because a deficit is just a budgetary estimate of overspending. It isn't real. What is real is the debt that contin ...[text shortened]... exceed all revenues, and leave nothing for social programs, defence or anything else.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf Romney gets elected, there will be large tax cuts. Period.
My guess is that if Romney does become president, nothing much will change in terms of taxation, because most cuts in public spending (you know, the ones that actually reduce government services) would be highly unpopular and there simply would be no money for significant tax reductions.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraEnd Medicare, Medicaid, food "stamps", MediCal, homeless shelters, federal money to public schools, etc. AKA "entitlements"
How would he pay for them? Reagan had a small deficit and could simply borrow money to pay for his tax cuts, same for GWB. Romney does not have that option.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHe won't pay for them. Right wing ideology insists that tax cuts pay for themselves in increased revenue. So the Republicans will try that experiment AGAIN.
How would he pay for them? Reagan had a small deficit and could simply borrow money to pay for his tax cuts, same for GWB. Romney does not have that option.
Anyway, so far there seems to be plenty of rich folks who will let the US government borrow money. It's not like they have anything better to do with it.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, they'll be cuts, but they won't come anywhere near ending those programs or equaling the revenue lost from 20 percent across the board tax cuts.
End Medicare, Medicaid, food "stamps", MediCal, homeless shelters, federal money to public schools, etc. AKA "entitlements"