2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat everybody seems to be missing about the Romney/Ryan tax flim-flam
They won't identify any deductions or loopholes because they don't really plan to eliminate any of them.
Ryan doesn't have the timeto "go through the math" not because it is complicated, but becuase it is so simple.
Here is the math:
20% cut in tax rates costs $5,000,000,000,000 over ten years. This leads to a veritable bounty of economic activity, and this supercharged economy yields increased tax revenues of ... wait for it ... wait for it ...
$5,000,000,000,000. So you see, it is revenue neutral.
It isn't any more complicated than that. And Romney essentially said this in the first debate:
The second area: taxation. We agree; we ought to bring the tax rates down, and I do, both for corporations and for individuals. But in order for us not to lose revenue, have the government run out of money, I also lower deductions and credits and exemptions so that we keep taking in the same money when you also account for growth.
And Ryan said the same thing last night:
REP. RYAN: You can cut tax rates by 20 percent and still preserve these important preferences for middle-class taxpayers —
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Not mathematically possible.
REP. RYAN: It is mathematically possible. It's been done before. It's precisely what we're proposing.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Chuckles.) It has never been done before.
REP. RYAN: It's been done a couple of times, actually.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: It has never been done before.
REP. RYAN: Jack Kennedy lowered tax rates, increased growth. Ronald Reagan ...
THIS IS NOT COMPLICATED, folks. It is all right there. Their whole deal is nothing but that old Republican folklore that you can cut taxes and actually end up with more total tax revenue coming in. Reagan did cut taxes, and eventually there was more tax revenue. but not until after Reagan did a MASSIVE build-up of the military through deficit spending and also raised a bunch of tax rates. You can never get more total tax revenue simply by cutting taxes.
Why is it so hard to get somebody to ask the question. It should be easy.
"Governor Romney, you said that your tax plan is revenue neutral 'when you account for growth'. How much growth do you assume results from a 20% cut in tax rates?"
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PDJane
(10,103 posts)The next Democratic lot will have ever higher piles of elephant dung to clean up.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)that would be a good reason for doing it. That is the "Pennies from Heaven" tax plan.
Listen to me, their key flim-flam is that they claim that by cutting tax rates you can get enough incremental GDP to break even. That NEVER happens. We have to call them on that specific issue. That is the big dodge.
If we can get that voodoo out into the open, the whole thing falls apart.
It is maddening that people are asking questions all around the issue, but cannot manage to ask THE central question, which is, again:
"Governor Romney, you said that your tax plan is revenue neutral 'when you account for growth'. How much growth do you assume results from a 20% cut in tax rates?"
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)When you think of the cost to both government and business to re-program all these new rates etc...why do it?
Justice
(7,188 posts)And, if the "economic growth" does not occur - what happens? Larger deficits?
Would Romney/Ryan take the tax cuts back if the growth did not occur or was lower than projections? No. Proving that they want the tax cuts - they don't care about the deficit or the debt - they just want the tax cuts.
I really liked it when Schumer came out this week and said, how about no tax cuts, let's just close loopholes and deductions to raise revenue. Republicans when CRAZY with press releases, because all they care about is tax cuts.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)How about we close those loopholes and deductions, and once we see that money actually come in, we rebate half of it to the public and apply the other half to reduce the national debt.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)But congress has never met a loophole it didn't like. 
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)can't speak of increases in taxes paid as a tax increase because cutting deductions isn't an increase in a tax rate.
Rmoney is a tremendously creative when it comes to flim-flam it's never quite an out and out lie, but it's a sack of MALARKY
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Chris Wallace asked a couple of questions about deductions and then gave up. Martha Radditz asked a couple of questions and then gave up.
You can't reward these assholes for stonewalling. Biden (last night) or Obama (next week) need to say, "look, if they want us to believe that you can cut tax rates and actually have the same amount of money coming into the government, then they have to tell us either what deductions they will cut or what assumptions they are making for growth. Without that it is just a flip-flam. We're all here right now. Just tell us the answer. It will only take 60 seconds. I'll be happy to give up 60 seconds of my time to finally get a straight answer on this. What are you hiding?"
gkhouston
(21,642 posts)I want to see lots of details, and assumptions backed up by truly independent studies of relevant situations. Until then, I'm assuming it's total bullshit.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)We know it is bullshit, but the media, by and large, treats it like "Oh you know politicians always stretch the truth. Boys will be boys."
It is not an exaggeration. It is complete nonsense, and it should not be so hard to get the key points that even a MSM moron can understand.
Tell us what deductions and loopholes you would cut.
Tell us how much growth you assume will come from cutting all tax rates by 20%
Simple as that. If they don't answer the question. Ask them again.
