Liberals and Romney's taxes

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.


.

Tax increases for the rich to pay down our debt is bunk.

It's estimated the increased taxes would bring in $80-$90 Billion, chump change when it comes to a $16 Trilion debt.
If it were put to the debt, like they claim it would , how would that create jobs and improve the economy?
Cutting their taxes would put more money into the economy, creating jobs and increased revenue. Use the increased revenue to pay down the debt.

Cutting all Govt programs by 10% ,prolly all waste anyway, is the way to go.
I can hear it now, "we can't cut entitlement programs, what will people do?"
Tighten their belt just like families do when less money is coming in.
We are broke. Libs have great intentions but lead with their emotions instead of their heads.
Again, we are broke. Our Gross national product is 1 Trillion less than our debt.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Cutting their taxes would put more money into the economy creating jobs and increased revenue. Use the increased revenue to pay down the debt.

That's certainly the conventional wisdom isn't it?

If it were true you'd think we'd see it more consistently. In the real world though there are a lot more factors that influence the economic cycles than just capital.

Wealth continues to concentrate and companies are sitting on trillions in cash. Put simply, if access to wealth was sure to drive revenue you'd think the economy should be cranking right now.

-spence

[justplugit]

Spence,
in the real world we are Broke!
In the real world the Govt can't provde evertbody with what they want.
In the real world you have to work for what you want.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence,
in the real world we are Broke!
In the real world the Govt can't provde evertbody with what they want.
In the real world you have to work for what you want.

There's a good argument for some restraint, I'll give you that.

But lowering taxes isn't going to fix the economy. The wealthy have plenty of money and they're not investing in job growth...because crushing household debt is still leaving consumers without any power to purchase.

Romney's solution for this appears to be to make the problem worse. Give the wealthy more money and raise taxes on everyone else.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...COX_story.html

Seems sort of backwards doesn't it?

I'd wager that the effective tax rate will have little to do with the economic recovery which will follow it's own cycle.

-spence

[justplugit]

Agree about the cycle, but taxing and Govt. spending will never speed
the cycle up.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Agree about the cycle, but taxing and Govt. spending will never speed
the cycle up.

No doubt that spending reductions would help with confidence as well as the massive amount of debt service.

Spending reductions have a flip side though as well. Ryan's plans before looked to eliminate 4+ million Government jobs. While that might make the Fed smaller, it also increases the unemployed and weakens the consumer base and shifts burden to the States.

Increasing revenues via taxation doesn't magically fix the problem, but combined with modest cuts can have a meaningful impact that's short-term.

Right now I don't think it's reasonable nor necessary to have a perfect end game solution. We simply need to be moving the ball in the right direction.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No doubt that spending reductions would help with confidence as well as the massive amount of debt service.

Spending reductions have a flip side though as well. Ryan's plans before looked to eliminate 4+ million Government jobs. While that might make the Fed smaller, it also increases the unemployed and weakens the consumer base and shifts burden to the States.

Increasing revenues via taxation doesn't magically fix the problem, but combined with modest cuts can have a meaningful impact that's short-term.

Right now I don't think it's reasonable nor necessary to have a perfect end game solution. We simply need to be moving the ball in the right direction.

-spence

'No doubt that spending reductions would help with confidence..."

Obama not only doubts that, he denies it.

"While that might make the Fed smaller, it also increases the unemployed "

Spence, if government (feds and local) would loosen the noose around our necks, confidence would grow (as you said), so businesses would take some of that money and grow, and hire many displaced federal employees. The fedweral government was not designed to be a jobs program.

"We simply need to be moving the ball in the right direction."

Well, Obama's idea of "the right direction" seems to be to double-down on failed, expensive ideas. He has added to the debt, failed to curtail unemployment, and done exactly nothing to address entitlement programs (except to demonize those who propose ideas). Spence, how is that "moving the ball in the right direction"?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Spending reductions have a flip side though as well. Ryan's plans before looked to eliminate 4+ million Government jobs.

-spence

Not to worry, they can all get jobs in the new booming "Green Economy."