 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: dick greenhaus Date: 14 Oct 12 - 01:02 PM I'm posing this question to the few Romney supporters among us. a) If a 20% across-the-board tax cut could be offset by eliminating loopholes without raising taxes on middle-class families (a neat trick, BTW) how does this help reduce the deficit? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Oct 12 - 01:12 PM b) How does it create jobs? As it was Described by Romney, wouldn't pretty much be the same people paying the same amount of taxes? I can see a few hundred tax accountants LOSING their jobs, but that is about it. c) Isn't it redistribution? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: DMcG Date: 14 Oct 12 - 01:20 PM I think it is just a standard loss leader just like supermarkets: tempt you in with a nice deal then rip you once you are there. Those nasty other policies may (or may not) reduce the deficit but its the role of this one to get the chance to employ them |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: GUEST,999 Date: 14 Oct 12 - 01:51 PM "Revenue Neutral? Explain Please" A tax term which people not in the know assume to be something that people in the know actually know about and understand. IMO, people who give credence to the term are seriously misaligned in the 'fore/aft' sense. In simple words, it was described by PT Barnum in his statement that there's one born every minute. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: pdq Date: 14 Oct 12 - 02:12 PM Prosperity leads to increased Federal revenue. In a depression, a dollar will circulate about 5 times a year. In a normal economy, about 6 times. In boom times, a dollar will trade hands about 7 times a year. If we go from the current depression ratio to good times, we will get about a 30% increase in money circulation with a correspondinge increase in Federal revenue. If a 20% reduction in taxation produces a 30% increase in circulation, we all win. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Don Firth Date: 14 Oct 12 - 02:37 PM Voodoo. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Oct 12 - 02:42 PM PDQ, He didn't say that the tax decrease would be offset by growth in the economy he said that it would be offset by deductions. d.) how does giving someone like Mitt Romney more money to invest in China and to put in foreign accounts help the economy "prosper." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Greg F. Date: 14 Oct 12 - 04:32 PM Jack, its about making the 1% prosper - and screw wveryone else. e.) How does giving a jackass like Romney the job of president make any sense at all, period? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: dick greenhaus Date: 15 Oct 12 - 09:49 AM I'm asking this question to Romney supporters, because I'd like to learn their rationale. I alraedy know what Obama supporters think about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: GUEST,999 Date: 15 Oct 12 - 12:12 PM revenue neutral Definition Taxing procedure that allows the government to still receive the same amount of money despite changes in tax laws. The government may lower taxes for one particular group of people, but raise taxes for another group. This allows the revenue that they receive to remain unchanged (neutral). Romney supporters can't provide a rationale. Neither can Obama supporters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Oct 12 - 02:56 PM "If a 20% reduction in taxation produces a 30% increase in circulation..." then it surely wouldn't be "revenue neutral". (Unlikely to be credible either, but that's a different matter.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: dick greenhaus Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:00 PM Romney has claimed a 20% reduction in tax |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: GUEST,999 Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:21 PM Romney likely is too, Dick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: GUEST,mark-s(on the road) Date: 16 Oct 12 - 06:22 AM Same justification used by JFK in 1962. Lowering rates leads to an increase in economic activity. So by lowering rates on "X" you get more of "X", so you get the same or more revenue from "X" at the lower rate than you would have gotten from "X" at the higher rate. Easy to understand at the top and bottom limits: 0% tax rate on "X" yields no revenue because there is no tax. 100% tax rate on "X" yields no revenue because there is no "X". Somewhere in the middle is a tax rate which maximizes both - but - no way am I smart enough to tell you what it is! Mark ( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: GUEST,999 Date: 16 Oct 12 - 09:19 AM No offence Mark-s, but I got lost back in grade 8 when the train travelling east at 50 mph was going to meet the train travelling west at 35 mph and the teacher wanted to know where and when they would meet. I answered, "Montreal at noon because the passengers want to have steamies on The Main for lunch" I got a detention for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Ron Davies Date: 16 Oct 12 - 09:52 AM "Lowering rates leads to increased economic activity." It ain't necessarily so. It's especially not so for the well-to-do, who are not all "job-creators". In fact, this has been called supply-side fairy dust. The only certainty is that lowering tax rates causes--immediately--less revenue for the government--so higher deficits, and likely higher interest rates to try to attract support from the financial community, national and international, in the face of this. Unless there are cuts in the budget to offset the loss of revenue. And for some reason, Romney is unwilling to tell us exactly how he will offset the immediate loss of revenue. So far he has mainly mumbled about "closing loopholes". But of course we should trust him on this, since, no doubt, he has a secret plan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Greg F. Date: 16 Oct 12 - 09:58 AM "Secret Plan" - Just like Dick Nixon had. Didn't work for Dick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Ron Davies Date: 16 Oct 12 - 10:19 AM Jon Stewart had a great clip last night by FDR, pointing out how the GOP promised more prosperity, defending Social Security--and it would cost nothing. And all people had to do was trust them. That was the 1936 campaign. Plus ca change.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Oct 12 - 12:33 PM As of the first debate, Romney's platform is to promise everyone what they want and count on people hearing what they want to hear. So far he has well and truly fooled the major media and according to the polls, some portion of undecided voters. It is interesting that he did so so early in the campaign. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Oct 12 - 01:11 PM Here it is Dick. Explained as clearly as is possible. http://www.romneytaxplan.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: dick greenhaus Date: 17 Oct 12 - 01:22 PM Where are the Mudcat conservatives? Bruce, PDQ, GfS, Sawz? I really want to hear what they say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Stringsinger Date: 17 Oct 12 - 01:33 PM Right Jack. Economic growth was never defined in the debates. How do you cut taxes to stimulate economic growth? This assumes people will spend more if they are given tax breaks. It hasn't worked out that way. The rich hoard. The poor are still struggling with the minor tax breaks they get. It's a political football that is used to get candidates elected but it is meaningless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: GUEST,999 Date: 17 Oct 12 - 04:23 PM Fair enough, Dick. I'll read but not write on the thread. Actually, I'd like to hear it explained to me, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: pdq Date: 17 Oct 12 - 04:35 PM I tried my best in the post of Date: 14 Oct 12 - 02:12 PM Personally, I doubt that Mitt Romney used the term "revenue neutral". If the economy goes back to boom times, we will have lower rates by higher total Federal revenue. Kennedy, Reagan and GW proved it works, but few things make Liberals madder than pointing this out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Oct 12 - 06:02 PM Reagan and GW ballooned the deficit pdq. Yer man has promised not to to this. Even though arithmetic says that he will either balloon the deficit or have to cut elsewhere. Kennedy's cuts were specifically tuned to promote hiring, and were soon repealed, and coincided with huge postwar growth. So it is not a fair comparison. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: dick greenhaus Date: 17 Oct 12 - 07:11 PM PPDG- No, Romney did use that term in talking about his proposed tax rate reduction. He said tht total tax revenue would not decrease, due to proposed closing of (unspecified) loopholes. He lso claimed that he would not increase taxes on middle-lass families. I saw and heard him. Regardless of whether or not he could pull it off, I don't see how a revised tax structure that didn't increase revenue could favorably impact the deficit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: pdq Date: 17 Oct 12 - 07:15 PM Reagan gave us 1.6 trillion in deficit in 8 years with a Democrat Congress. The Bammer will have left us with a 6 trillion debt increase in just 4 years (that is all he will get, trust me on this one). If he had 8 years, like Reagan, The Bammer would give us 12 trillion debt with a Democrat Congress. People who think those numbers are equivalent are smoking some fuzzy math. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: pdq Date: 17 Oct 12 - 07:28 PM I don't believe Romney said "revenue neutral". That is a term like "carbon neutral" that is used by the PC hip types and is not in the vocabulary of a high-powered businessman who has real work responsibilities, no time for spin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Bobert Date: 17 Oct 12 - 07:37 PM This is all a silly discussion... What budgets come down to is revenues and expenses... It doesn't much matter if its a single mom making $8 an hour or a CEO making $8M a year... Things do need to be paid for but... ... as that single mom knows all too well, if times are tough then you borrow and when times are better, you pay it back... This is very basic economics but it has been economic truth going back to the days of Jesus... The Bible makes several reference to borrowing... Yeah, some are conflicting but the reality is that the practice has been with us for at least a couple thousand years... Problem we have now is that we are in tough times... Not good times... That means borrowing... No way around it... This is the wrongest of wrong times to attack the deficit... If a single mom making $8 an hour knows this economic truth it is amazing that one half of Americans don't understand this simple economic truth... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Oct 12 - 11:20 AM We always seem to get rightwing politicians (actually, pretty well all politicians are rightwing politicians) arguing that lower tax rates bring in more tax revenue because it cuts down on tax evasion and tax avoidance - "paradoxically enouh" they say. The alternative approach of directly eliminating all the tax fiddles, so that the higher tax rate brings in all the money it is supposed to bring in never seems to get a look in. Ideally I'd like to see a maxiumum earning ceiling, and a maxxiuum wealth ceiling, at some reasonable level. Analogous to the limit pur society imposes on the number of husbands or wives (or civil partners) anyone is allowed to have at the same time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: DMcG Date: 18 Oct 12 - 01:13 PM The right wingers would say that that removed the incentive of the top people to do more since they get no reward for it, McGrath. I'd go for a different approach myself: I'd set no limit at all on the top earners, but impose the rule that the annual-equivalent salary+benefits can't be more than a certain multiple of the median salary+benefits. And that would include all the part timers, and self-employed people providing services to the company who are not technically on the payroll. And I'd also have a government team whose sole remit was to close loopholes whereby groups of people providing services to the company are excluded from the measurement by some technical sleight of hand. (I say annual equivalent because that would set a limit on the payments to non-execs who are only needed say five days a year) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Oct 12 - 01:57 PM I'd question the assumption that putting more money in the pockets of rich people makes them more "productive". I don't understand the mechanism by which that works. What do they do because they have more money? Turn up to more board meetings then they otherwise would? Make more intelligent executive decisions at those board meetings then they otherwise would? And if they get a little less, they stop going to board meetings, and make stupid decisions? In any job you expect people to do what they are employed to do to the best of their ability. That applies just as much to the boss as it does to the cleaner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Greg F. Date: 18 Oct 12 - 02:14 PM I'd question the assumption that putting more money in the pockets of rich people makes them more "productive". Watcha got there are rich leeches. Productive my arse. Production comes from the working classes - always has done, always will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Oct 12 - 02:15 PM As the old saying goes - "a fair day's work for a fair day's pay". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: dick greenhaus Date: 19 Oct 12 - 01:24 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Oct 12 - 03:20 PM From: dick greenhaus - PM Date: 19 Oct 12 - 01:24 PM Best post on the thread dick ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: gnu Date: 19 Oct 12 - 03:54 PM pdq... did you sleep through the bush years? Clinton handed Bush a load of cash and he spent it like a kid in a candy store and then asked the clerk for more on credit. That clerk was China and now Romney says he is gonna tell China to back the fuck up when China has all the cash, the US debt they hold AND still has lots of candy? WTF are you smoking? Paraquat? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: pdq Date: 19 Oct 12 - 04:32 PM I've eaten DDT. Does that count? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Oct 12 - 04:59 PM LOL, I would say so. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: GUEST,999 Date: 24 Oct 12 - 01:00 AM Still waiting. After being castigated by Dick who seems to have given up on this thread, I am still wondering wtf revenue neutral means to Republicans. (Sorry, Dick, but you chose not to remark, so I am.) Any Republican takers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: dick greenhaus Date: 24 Oct 12 - 09:23 AM Apparently not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: GUEST,TIA Date: 24 Oct 12 - 10:28 AM PDQ's first post seems to be citing the Laffer Curve (whether he knows it or not) that predicts that total government revenue can be increased by lowering taxes...because lowering taxes increases economic actvity. All true. But the Laffer curve is parabolic - not monotonic. That means there is an optimum tax rate that maximizes government revenue. The Righties always fail to see this important point - which can be nicely illustrated by extrapolating to the end of the spectrum...if we cut taxes to zero, will this increase government revenues? Of course not. So what is the optimum point, or the maximum of the Laffer curve? Well, it is different for different countries and time periods, but modern academic studies (peer-reviewed) come up with a range of values...with a median of about 70% * So, do we really want to cite Laffer curve reasoning PDQ? Really? Okay by me. But I bet you are not so enthusiastic all of a sudden. * See Fullerton, Don (2008) "Laffer curve". In Durlauf, Steven N.; Blume, Lawrence E.. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: pdq Date: 24 Oct 12 - 11:06 AM No, what I said was common based in common sense. The Laffer Curve is about the tax rate which gives the government the most money. The two are related and based in common sense, but not exactly the same subject. Laffer says that that 100% Federal income tax will result in $0 because nobody will work for nothing. At the other extreme, if you tax at 0% you also get nothing. Therefore, the best rate is between 0 and 100%. Sorta obvious, though. Laffer found that a rate of 28% percent is optimal because it is the most people are willing to pay with minimum resistance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Greg F. Date: 24 Oct 12 - 11:41 AM Well, PeeDee, in light of Lafler's 28% finding, why is Mittens (and those like him) paying 14% or less and corporations paying next to zilch? Time to take your own medicine, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 24 Oct 12 - 11:41 AM But of course we should trust him on this, since, no doubt, he has a secret plan. Well, RMoney has told us himself, "I know how to do it!" on a number of issues. And surely he wouldn't have said that if he didn't really know how, would he? He just doesn't want to tell us how (until he gets elected, he hopes) because then we'd ALL know! Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: Greg F. Date: 24 Oct 12 - 12:09 PM But just what is IT that he knows how to do? That's also a secret..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Revenue Neutral? Explain Please From: GUEST,999 Date: 24 Oct 12 - 01:06 PM Too true. |
