Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 74

Thread: concentrate on the **** that matters...

  1. #21
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,976
    The statement means nothing without details. In all practicality, a 20% tax cut across the board is fiscally impossible unless it is accompanied with fundamental tax reform and/or extreme cuts to Medicare, SS, and Defense.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=parafly;4387127]The statement means nothing without details. In all practicality, a 20% tax cut across the board is fiscally impossible unless it is accompanied with fundamental tax reform and/or extreme cuts to Medicare, SS, and Defense.[/QUOTE]

    Romney's plan is a comprehensive tax reform. He reduces rates while eliminating or reducing certain deductions. Not quite revenue neutral but close to it. He also proposed phasing out or reduction of Social Security and Medicare benefits for the wealthy.

  3. #23
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,976
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4387196]He reduces rates while eliminating or reducing certain deductions.[/QUOTE]

    Sounds great and I fully support it, but the devil is in the details.

    [QUOTE]He also proposed phasing out or reduction of Social Security and Medicare benefits for the wealthy.[/QUOTE]

    Serious question ... would that make any sort of dent in these exploding costs? I have my doubts.

  4. #24
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,490
    [QUOTE=parafly;4387208]Sounds great and I fully support it, but the devil is in the details.



    Serious question ... would that make any sort of dent in these exploding costs? I have my doubts.[/QUOTE]

    so support the guy who is raising taxes?

    Nothing can improve without an effort or an attempt to change, that will not happen with the current administration.

  5. #25
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,976
    [QUOTE=jetswin;4387215]so support the guy who is raising taxes?[/QUOTE]

    Taxes haven't been raised since the 90's. This is a thread about Romney and his tax plan/statements, and in my mind, Obama's past and future actions are irrelevant to the conversation.

    [QUOTE]Nothing can improve without an effort or an attempt to change, that will not happen with the current administration.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed completely. I simply have my doubts that Romney represents any sort of meaningful change, and I don't view blanket statements of taking an axe to all tax rates without a viable plan to compensate for the reduction as being anything more than political fluff.

  6. #26
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,490
    [QUOTE=parafly;4387241]Taxes haven't been raised since the 90's. This is a thread about Romney and his tax plan/statements, and in my mind, Obama's past and future actions are irrelevant to the conversation.



    Agreed completely. I simply have my doubts that Romney represents any sort of meaningful change, and I don't view blanket statements of taking an axe to all tax rates without a viable plan to compensate for the reduction as being anything more than political fluff.[/QUOTE]
    BO's healthcare tax increases are right around the corner, brace yourself

    [URL]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/11/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-has-raised-taxes-19-/[/URL]

    [QUOTE]
    [B]Items that are clearly taxes, and that are already in effect

    • [I]Increasing the federal excise tax on tobacco[/I]. Obama signed legislation[/B][URL="http://www.ttb.gov/main_pages/schip-summary.shtml"][B] raising taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products[/B][/URL][B] soon after taking office; that money goes to pay for children's health insurance programs. The law went into effect in 2009.

    • [I]A 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services[/I]. This tax is narrowly targeted at tanning bed users, but it is still a tax. This took effect July 1, 2010.

    • [I]Increasing corporate taxes by making it more difficult for businesses to engage in activities that reduce their tax liability[/I]. This appears to refer to the closing of a half-dozen existing exemptions and credits relevant only to large international corporations. (We wrote about this[/B][URL="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/05/barack-obama/barack-obama-reelection-video-says-he-closed-corpo/"][B] recently[/B][/URL][B].) While this is a provision targeted narrowly at big conglomerates -- and while it’s popular as a way to keep deep-pocketed countries from sheltering excessive amounts of income -- our experts said it does count as a tax increase. Obama signed the bill into law on Aug. 10, 2010.

    • [I]Imposing an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs, based on each company’s share of the total market[/I]. While some industry-specific levies are intended to help foot the bill for regulatory processes, this one is more of a revenue raiser for the more general goals of the health care overhaul. It took effect on Jan. 1, 2011.

    Items that are clearly taxes, but which are not yet in effect

    Listed in chronological order of date they will take effect:

    • [I]Increasing the hospital insurance portion of the payroll tax from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent for couples earning more than $250,000 a year, or $200,000 for single filers[/I]. Takes effect Jan. 1, 2013.

    • [I]Applying the 3.8 percent hospital insurance tax to investment income for couples earning more than $250,000 a year, or $200,000 for single filers, for the first time[/I]. Takes effect Jan. 1, 2013.

    • [I]A 2.3 percent excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices[/I]. This is a narrowly targeted tax, but still a tax (and will likely be reflected in consumer prices once it begins). Takes effect Jan. 1, 2013.

    • [I]Raise the 7.5 percent adjusted gross income floor for the medical expenses deduction to 10 percent[/I]. People who would have qualified for the deduction this year would pay more. Takes effect Jan. 1, 2013.

    • [I]Annual fee levied on health insurance providers, based on each company’s share of the total market[/I]. Same logic as the levy on branded drug companies cited above. Takes effect Jan. 1, 2013.

    • [I]Limiting the amount taxpayers can deposit in flexible spending accounts to $2,500 a year[/I]. While the Obama camp says this provision is intended in part to stop abuse of the system, our experts consider it a tax because it increases taxable income. Takes effect Jan. 1, 2013

    • [I]Eliminating the corporate deduction for prescription expenses for retirees[/I]. According to the Society for Human Resource Management, certain employers were not only "qualified to receive a subsidy equal to 28 percent of covered prescription drug costs for their retirees," but the employer also was entitled to an income tax deduction for the subsidy. The idea behind providing both a subsidy and a tax deduction was to reduce taxpayer costs for the Medicare drug plan by encouraging companies pay their retirees’ costs, but the way it was structured was criticized by some as double-dipping. No matter the justification, our experts agreed it was still a tax hike. It takes effect Jan. 1, 2013.

    • [I]Increasing taxes on health insurance companies by limiting the amount of compensation paid to certain employees that they can deduct from their taxes[/I]. According to Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation, this will be effective for compensation paid in taxable years "beginning after 2012, with respect to services performed after 2009." Once again, this is narrowly targeted at health care company executives -- not a popular group -- but it’s still a tax.

    • [I]A 40 percent excise tax on employer-provided "Cadillac" health insurance plans costing more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families[/I]. Takes effect Jan. 1, 2018.

    Items about which there is no consensus over whether they’re taxes

    • [I]Reduce the number of medical products taxpayers can purchase using funds they put aside in health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts[/I]. The definition of which items qualify and don’t qualify for flex spending plans seems to us to be more like the kind of decision made by regulators than lawmakers responsible for writing the tax code.

    • [I]A mandate for individuals to buy health insurance and for employers to offer it to their workers[/I]. This one is a doozy, because the answer is crucial to the court case that challenges the entire health care law. Because the courts will ultimately decide whether the federal government is levying a tax on people who can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it -- or whether the government is simply using the tax code to enforce a criminal penalty, as some critics of the health care law say -- we won’t take a side on this question.
    [/B]
    [/QUOTE]

  7. #27
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,976
    [QUOTE=jetswin;4387262]BO's healthcare tax increases are right around the corner, brace yourself

    [URL]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/11/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-has-raised-taxes-19-/[/URL][/QUOTE]

    Prime example of why fundamental tax reform is sorely needed.

  8. #28
    If you both cut corporate tax and cap gains taxes the benifit to the investor class at the expense of the wage earner will be off the charts. If we reduce corporate taxes cap gains and dividends will increase which should be plenty of incentive for people to continue to invest and build wealth. Cap gains and dividend interest rates should go up if corporate taxes go down.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4387284]If you both cut corporate tax and cap gains taxes the benifit to the investor class at the expense of the wage earner will be off the charts. If we reduce corporate taxes cap gains and dividends will increase which should be plenty of incentive for people to continue to invest and build wealth. Cap gains and dividend interest rates should go up if corporate taxes go down.[/QUOTE]

    What about a revenue neutral corporate tax cut which brings rates to a more competitive level while eliminating loopholes and reducing deductions to level the playing field for all companies?

    On the savings side it would be great if Romney got his no tax on cap gains and dividends for people earning 200K or less passed. We spend so much time and effort with Roth IRA's and 528k savings plans etc. It would wipe out all of that paperwork.

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4387423]What about a revenue neutral corporate tax cut which brings rates to a more competitive level while eliminating loopholes and reducing deductions to level the playing field for all companies?

    On the savings side it would be great if Romney got his no tax on cap gains and dividends for people earning 200K or less passed. We spend so much time and effort with Roth IRA's and 528k savings plans etc. It would wipe out all of that paperwork.[/QUOTE]

    I prefer we model the tax plan on Simpson Bowles or go straight back to the 86 tax reform.

    We need to get some tax reform this year Romney's plan at this point doesn't really matter. We either let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone at the end of this year and wait for a likely divided Congress to come up with something retroactive next year or get a bipartisan deal done this year.

    Romney is going to have a tough time selling a plan that cuts his taxes and takes an axe to future SS and Medicare recepients while doing little to address middle class tax payers. It won't sell.

  11. #31
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=jetswin;4387262]BO's healthcare tax increases are right around the corner, brace yourself

    [/QUOTE]

    Isn't it cute how most of those don't go into effect until after the election? :rolleyes:

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=jetswin;4387215]so support the guy who is raising taxes?

    Nothing can improve without an effort or an attempt to change, that will not happen with the current administration.[/QUOTE]

    If raising taxes was part of an overall plan to get us to spend within our means, then yes -- I'd be willing to pay more in taxes (and I'm FAR from a "1%er"). I'd also be willing to forfeit future benefits (I'm 40) if it helped strengthen the foundation for my children.

    Unfortunately, that appears to be a pipedream. It's so frustrating to know higher taxes/less benefits are probably necessary for fiscal health, yet also know if/when it happens, it will only be so they have more $$ to play with . . .

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4387489]If raising taxes was part of an overall plan to get us to spend within our means, then yes -- I'd be willing to pay more in taxes (and I'm FAR from a "1%er"). I'd also be willing to forfeit future benefits (I'm 40) if it helped strengthen the foundation for my children.

    Unfortunately, that appears to be a pipedream. It's so frustrating to know higher taxes/less benefits are probably necessary for fiscal health, yet also know if/when it happens, it will only be so they have more $$ to play with . . .[/QUOTE]

    Think about the percentage of the population without government pensions. Whats in this for them? I pay a $hitload of tax ( I do fairly well) BUT I have to make sure I save enough to retire. We need to make the burden more fair. Everyone should pay..... public pensions put tremendous pressure on communities.

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4387449]I prefer we model the tax plan on Simpson Bowles or go straight back to the 86 tax reform.

    We need to get some tax reform this year Romney's plan at this point doesn't really matter. We either let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone at the end of this year and wait for a likely divided Congress to come up with something retroactive next year or get a bipartisan deal done this year.

    Romney is going to have a tough time selling a plan that cuts his taxes and takes an axe to future SS and Medicare recepients while doing little to address middle class tax payers. It won't sell.[/QUOTE]

    There is zero chance that we get tax reform in an election year. The Bush tax cuts likely will expire. People will be falling over themselves to dump their stocks and book profits at the lower rates. Markets will crumble late in the year then bounce back in 2012.

    Romneys plan is designed to benefit middle class tax payers. I'm not sure what you are reading. He phases out social security and medicare benefits for the wealthy. He eliminates taxes on cap gains and dividends for middle income workers. He phases out tax deductions for high income earners while keeping them in place for middle income taxpayers. What am I missing here?

  15. #35
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4387544]There is zero chance that we get tax reform in an election year. The Bush tax cuts likely will expire. People will be falling over themselves to dump their stocks and book profits at the lower rates. Markets will crumble late in the year then bounce back in 2012.

    Romneys plan is designed to benefit middle class tax payers. I'm not sure what you are reading. He phases out social security and medicare benefits for the wealthy. He eliminates taxes on cap gains and dividends for middle income workers. He phases out tax deductions for high income earners while keeping them in place for middle income taxpayers. What am I missing here?[/QUOTE]

    Phasing out SS and Medicare for any class of people in the US is not going to play well. SS and Medicare have broad support because people have ownership in it. The Republicans are nuts not to let the Democrats dismantle this idea. If the Republicans do it they are dead meat.

    As the clock ticks toward expiration of the Bush tax cuts the democrats will win that battle also. Middle class taxpayers will be held hostage for the top tax payers by the Republicans bank on it.

    The Republicans blew it when they scuttled Simpson Bowles. If they don't get a reasonable deal done before the election they will be slaughtered. They blew their advantage by digging in and now they are going to be on the defensive going into the election.

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4388309]Phasing out SS and Medicare for any class of people in the US is not going to play well. SS and Medicare have broad support because people have ownership in it. The Republicans are nuts not to let the Democrats dismantle this idea. If the Republicans do it they are dead meat.

    As the clock ticks toward expiration of the Bush tax cuts the democrats will win that battle also. Middle class taxpayers will be held hostage for the top tax payers by the Republicans bank on it.

    The Republicans blew it when they scuttled Simpson Bowles. If they don't get a reasonable deal done before the election they will be slaughtered. They blew their advantage by digging in and now they are going to be on the defensive going into the election.[/QUOTE]

    I disagree. If a person has an annual income in the $250,000+ range they do not need the $30K per year from social security. In Medicare they can afford higher co-pays. That is the carrot of revenue increases that can be used to bring Democrats on board with raising the eligibility age for both programs.

    Not sure how Republicans scuttled Simpson Bowles. The Democrats controlled the House and the Senate and the Presidency at the time. Republicans are rightfully leery of promises of future spending cuts in exchange for tax hikes today. Every time they've made that compromise with Democrats they have been burned. Same with border security. Democrats are like whiny children in these areas. They want amnesty today with a promise of border security tomorrow. It's been tried that way and has failed. Its time for a new way of doing things. I'm glad republicans are sticking to their guns.

  17. #37
    [QUOTE]=chiefst2000;4388337]I disagree. If a person has an annual income in the $250,000+ range they do not need the $30K per year from social security. In Medicare they can afford higher co-pays. That is the carrot of revenue increases that can be used to bring Democrats on board with raising the eligibility age for both programs.
    [/QUOTE]

    Who are you to say they don't need the 30K per year? Do you know what their expenses are? If you pay in you get the money back, if that concept is lost the entire program will be scuttled. Ownership is the reason the programs are so politically hard to touch. Once ownership of SS and Medicare are gone through means testing the programs themselves become nothing more than welfare. Deomcrats understand this, Republicans going for means testing a very Democratic idea is simply to undermine the programs in the long run, democrats understand that.

    [QUOTE]Not sure how Republicans scuttled Simpson Bowles. The Democrats controlled the House and the Senate and the Presidency at the time. Republicans are rightfully leery of promises of future spending cuts in exchange for tax hikes today. Every time they've made that compromise with Democrats they have been burned. Same with border security. Democrats are like whiny children in these areas. They want amnesty today with a promise of border security tomorrow. It's been tried that way and has failed. Its time for a new way of doing things. I'm glad republicans are sticking to their guns.[/QUOTE]

    The Republicans could have supported it and put the Democrats on the defensive instead they propossed scuttling SS and Medicare and gave them an out. Now they have leverage because middle class tax hikes become automatic without a deal and the Republicans look like the ones blocking it by hanging on to a small percentage of hikes for the wealthy.

    The Presidential election is virtually over, the Republicans are going to have a tough time holding the House. They win the Senate based on Demographics unless they blow a tax deal and the backlash gets them.

  18. #38
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4388357]Who are you to say they don't need the 30K per year? Do you know what their expenses are? If you pay in you get the money back, if that concept is lost the entire program will be scuttled. Ownership is the reason the programs are so politically hard to touch. Once ownership of SS and Medicare are gone through means testing the programs themselves become nothing more than welfare. Deomcrats understand this, Republicans going for means testing a very Democratic idea is simply to undermine the programs in the long run, democrats understand that.



    The Republicans could have supported it and put the Democrats on the defensive instead they propossed scuttling SS and Medicare and gave them an out. Now they have leverage because middle class tax hikes become automatic without a deal and the Republicans look like the ones blocking it by hanging on to a small percentage of hikes for the wealthy.

    The Presidential election is virtually over, the Republicans are going to have a tough time holding the House. They win the Senate based on Demographics unless they blow a tax deal and the backlash gets them.[/QUOTE]

    Ownership of social security and medicare is a myth. There is no lockbox for SS the money goes to the general fund. Same for Medicare. Obama pulled 500Billion from the so called lockbox to expand Obamacare entitlements. You are banking on the idea that people are completely stupid. I think there are enough rational people out there that want the truth about these issues.

  19. #39
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,334
    Until we are all on board with fixing things as a country we will never make progress.

    The myth that raising tax rates will lower the debt is a myth. Both parties have proven that they will spend above and beyond any amount of money that is brought it. This is why I agree with the Tea Party in not accepting tax hikes without huge spending cuts. I would also demand that the cuts come first since they have proven time and again that the promise of cuts is just hot air.

    We also have to be willing to understand there are [B]no sacred cows[/B]. Medicare, medicaid, SS and defense need to all be on the table and reformed or outright reduced to make us solvent again. Debt in the form of bonds is good to a point but outright borrowing from other countries is a recipe for disaster. Stop policing the world, we can't afford it.

    Get rid of business killing regulations. Stop thinking that the only way to prove you are doing your job in government is to create more legislation. Streamline government. Many of the corporate tax changes will not help our small businesses, many of which are S corps and LLCs that file taxes as personal income so they get none of the benefits of loopholes or corporate tax cuts. The tax system needs to be totally redone to a flat or fair tax type of system IMO.

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4388425]Ownership of social security and medicare is a myth. There is no lockbox for SS the money goes to the general fund. Same for Medicare. Obama pulled 500Billion from the so called lockbox to expand Obamacare entitlements. You are banking on the idea that people are completely stupid. I think there are enough rational people out there that want the truth about these issues.[/QUOTE]

    It may be a myth but any politician who doesn't support that myth is history.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us