The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Oh, he'll reduce some taxes alright. Depends on which income bracket you're in though...

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

Here's the link describing what Romney will do to the tax code if elected - "broaden the base" and "flatten" the code.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/mitt-romney-tax-reform-plan_n_1291326.html?1329851509

We had a progressive code because it compliments the regressive taxes we ALL have to pay, to spread the burden out. A flatter code is unconscionable because of those regressive taxes (gasoline, natural gas, etc)! It is also unconsionable because wealthy people only have to live on a small fraction of their annual income, making them less sensitive to tax increases. Take money away from people who are living on it, and believe me, some of them will go hungry! In addition, we already had 10 years of Bush's reduced rates and all it did was turn a budgetary surplus into a deficit. President Obama's solution is to raise tax revenue from people who are rolling in it. It is time for them to join the rest of us in digging us out of this hole we are in, because for the last 10 years they've been cashing in on a tax reduction that we could not afford to give them!

But Romney's tax strategy is consistent with the GOP's position of taking money out of middle and lower earners' pockets to pay for more cuts at the upper end. Which would bring the economy to a screeching halt, because instead of cutting government spending (which Romney admits would slow the economy) he will force middle and lower-earners to cut their spending (by increasing their tax burden!), which he doesn't seem to realize would also slow the economy. Um, yoohoo! Mr. Romney! Think this through a little bit, or talk to some more economists about that.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

I finally figured out what Assured's deal is: Obama's "Truth Team." We may be dealing with a bot. Such complete ignorance of contrary arguments (let a lone facts) and continual posting of article links cannot come from a human.

We have a progressive federal tax code.

Romney's immediate plan would be to:
• Maintain current tax rates on personal income
• 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

Over the longer term he would pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system that would include lower, flatter rates on a broader base. Presumably, what you find unconscionable is that he proposes "a broader base" of taxpayers. As it stands now, nearly half of Americans pay no federal income tax. And according to Congressional Budget Office estimates the lowest earning 20% of Americans pay an effective federal tax rate of 3.9%, taking into account income taxes, payroll taxes, and excise taxes. The reason that figure is so low is that those people pay no income taxes and a large number of them receive tax credits which mostly offset the other taxes they do pay. Meanwhile the highest earning 5% of Americans pay an effective rate of 21.5%.

This argument has nothing to do with justice and much to do with Marxist class envy. Our constitutional form of government is predicated on the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence -- that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness was understood to include the right to property, which is evident from the first draft of the Declaration. If I have a right to my property, that means you don't. Not even if I'm rich and you're poor. Certainly the rich should have compassion on the poor, but that is an individual mandate that doesn't give one person the right to take another's property for their own use or for another's use. You have no moral right to do that. And you cannot delegate a right that isn't yours. That is why the Founding Fathers argued forcefully against governmental redistribution of wealth.

I thought that was why we have Food Stamps -- so that poor people will not go hungry.

As I've previously shown, President Bush entered office on the cusp of a recession and his tax cuts were slow to stimulate the economy because Congress was slow to implement them. When Congress did fully implement them the economy began quickly gaining strength, leading to revenues exceeding the historical average rate relative to GDP. And had it not been for the global financial meltdown in December 2007, revenues would have continued trending higher. But the real killer in terms of Bush budget deficits was defense spending, which rose dramatically in response to the events of 9-11. Of course his new entitlement program didn't help matters either.

What you call cashing in, the Founders would have called retaining their property rights. President Obama has gone on record saying that you never want to raise taxes during a recession. What's changed?

All the GOP candidates advocate lowering tax rates for all taxpayers. And most Americans think that most of us (certainly more than 50%) should pay some taxes. A tax structure where most pay nothing is a recipe for disaster.

You're conflating Romney's long-term plan to overhaul the tax system with his immediate plan to stimulate an economic recovery.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Ah nope.

I'm just a (former Republican) voter, minding my own business...

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

Except when he's done with his supposedly "immediate plan to stimulate the economy," the tax code will remain exactly the way he changed it, for another 10 or 20 years. And nobody will bother to say, "Oops," either. I don't like it, and I don't trust this scenario. It'll be the Bush tax cuts on steroids, because it will do away with our progressive tax code, permanently. 'Cept we're not supposed to know that.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

*whispers* Psst! Assured. The House and Senate (including many of the Democrats) passed the "Bush tax cuts" in 2001 and 2003, and the Democrat controlled Congress with Obama's support renewed them. Bush could not have "cut taxes", as the Constitution only gives that power to Congress. It's a cute political tactic to call the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) the "Bush tax cuts" but it is false. Carry on parroting Obama's talking points now.

Gideon, trying to teach a Progressive Marxist what the Constitution mandates concerning taxation and property rights is like trying to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Blue Dog Democrats will pass anything. They are like "Mikey" in that cereal commercial, "He'll (they'll) eat (pass) anything."

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

Perhaps, but your objection was that by broadening the tax base he would force middle and low-earners to cut spending by increasing their tax burden and consequently slow the economy, ignoring that his plan is to first stimulate the economy by eliminating taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for taxpayers with AGI below $200K, thereby lowering taxes for those groups. And the saying is true that a rising tide lifts all boats. A growing economy would translate into higher incomes for those in the lower strata and it would be from that higher income that they would then begin to pay some taxes. It does not follow that those people would then have less disposable income than they do now or that by including them in the tax rolls the economy would be slowed.

I don't support Romney and I don't believe that he or anyone else will be able to pull such a rabbit out of the hat, but fair is fair. If we're going to evaluate his plan, we should evaluate his plan and not someone else's misrepresentation of it.

The "Bush tax cuts," like the "Reagan tax cuts," the "Kennedy tax cuts," and the "Coolidge tax cuts" before them, stimulated economic growth that led to higher tax revenues with the rich paying a bigger share of the total tax burden in every case. What's not to like about that? When that's the result, who really cares if the tax code is progressive? And in any proposed restructuring of the tax code, those in the lowest income strata would still pay no income taxes.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

It was worth a try, Gideon, but it didn't work. It didn't work with Reagan, and it didn't work with Bush. It only resulted in a larger and larger concentration of wealth at the upper end, because the money wasn't invested in ways that INCREASED (domestic) EMPLOYMENT.

It all comes down to how much disposable income people have. Wealthy people have so much disposable income, that any EXTRA money they get (such as tax savings) ends up having a negligible effect on the economy. Wealthy people have a lower multiplier. You might as well get your initial additional tax revenue there. So would say an economist, because tax savings distributed to lower and middle earners gets spent because it would be additional disposable income, rather than being added to the big pile of money that they never have to touch - LOL! President Obama is plotting a prudent course, and anything else is simply tickling the ears of big money donors. President Obama has big money donors but he isn't catering to them. That's integrity. But I digress.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

You are so obedient Assured! At least this thread is good for a daily giggle.The Founding Fathers, that's who. A progressive income tax was unconstitutional until 1913, when Socialist Progressives were able to ride a populist wave and pass the 16th Amendment.

Sorry, Psychobob, but it *is* possible to disagree with your position without being "obedient" and a "bot."

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

All but Ron Paul's proposed economic plans would increase the national debt according to a report released by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Obama's budget was not evaluated (but will be later in the year according to the organization releasing the report).

Bottom Line: The candidates are really not being straight up with us when it comes to serious budget cutting. With the exception of Ron Paul, none of them have the political courage to lay out specfic cuts to entitlement programs.


http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-V ... debt-worse

Who says anything has to happen to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

Do we really want to be a Third World country where only "certain" people can remain tuberculosis and whooping cough-free? Really?

How about we just make sure we collect adequate tax revenue to fund these programs, since they have always been a good idea? Because otherwise we might have a lot more in common with countries like China than we really want to. There are other places where it might make more sense to cut. No sense in being penny wise and pound foolish, and having a significantly more poverty-stricken and unhealthy populace that will make this country a more dangerous place to live. I mean, do we really want Walmart employees coughing all over our apples? At least Medicaid is there, since they don't have the decency to pay their people enough for them to use company insurance! And the grandchildren suffer if grandma and grandpa have a significantly reduced lifespan because they can't get healthcare.

This thread is on jobs, but these aren't just intangibles. Intangibles become tangible when we figure in the reduced productivity caused by people who are catching diseases and having to stay home. The poverty and poor health of some, affect everyone eventually and in tangible ways.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

I was of course speaking to the sensibilities of those who advocate a progressive tax code. Personally, I object to an individual income tax in any form. It imposes incredible intrusion into the lives of the people, it creates the potential for oppressive abuse, the compliance cost is an onerous burden, and it is economically stupid to tax personal productivity, savings and investment.

True, but not even Ron Paul would be able to do what he proposes without congressional support, and that won't happen. You can't get that many politicians with the courage to do what is necessary in one room.

These schemes are driving the debt that will result in enormous economic pain. Everyone recognizes they are or will be insolvent, and to do nothing about them is to ignore reality.

All tax and budgetary issues aside, our nation's real problem is spiritual and moral. We are doing the foolish things we're doing and having the problems we're having because we have rejected the Lord and rebelled against him. That is the root of our problem and unless that is addressed, nothing we do will cure our ails.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership