E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMillions of Americans use deductions to lighten their tax burden. But one lesson of Wednesday night’s debate between President Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is that those deductions might be in jeopardy – no matter who wins the election.
They disagree on income tax rates, but one policy on which Obama and Romney agree is limiting the use of tax deductions and other tax preferences. And 2013 seems to be shaping up as the first chance for fundamental tax reform since 1986.
The chairmen of the two congressional tax writing committees will be as important in shaping that reform as the president will be. If Republicans keep control of the House and Democrats retain control of the Senate, those two chairmen will be Rep. Dave Camp, R- Mich., and Sen. Max Baucus, D Mont.
J. Scott Applewhite / AP
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 19, 2012.
In a preview of tax reform, Baucus said in a speech last June, “Every tax provision needs to prove it has a tangible benefit to our economy or society. If not, it doesn’t belong in the tax code.”
That “tangible benefit” is the crux of the debate over deductions and other tax preferences.
Congress wouldn’t have created each deduction if it didn’t have a specific policy purpose it was pursuing. And Washington wouldn’t be filled with tax lobbyists and other advocates if companies, industries, and non-profit organizations didn’t know they needed to defend their specific tax break and argue that it has a tangible benefit.
If proof were needed of the tenacity of interest groups in defending tax preferences, consider what happened in 2009 when Obama proposed in his first budget plan to limit the use of tax deductions. The interest groups (the non-profit sector, the home builders, etc.) were able to defeat Obama’s attempt in 2009, and they might be able to scuttle any similar proposal in 2013.
For now, there’s only the most general agreement between Romney and Obama – both men say they want to limit the use of deductions and other tax preferences.
While Romney hasn’t committed himself to a specific plan to limit deductions, Obama has offered a detailed plan as part of each of his budget proposals since he became president. The Democratic incumbent proposes to limit the tax benefit of deductions for taxpayers with taxable income in excess of about $213,000 for individuals and $266,000 for couples who file joint tax returns.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, weighs in on the Romney tax plans and the state of the economy.
The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation illustrated how Obama’s limitation would work: Assume a taxpayer in the 36 percent tax bracket for 2013 makes a $10,000 contribution to a charitable group. Under current law, the $10,000 contribution results in a $3,600 tax savings. But under the Obama proposal, the same $10,000 contribution by the same taxpayer would result in a tax savings of only $2,800, thus forcing him or her to pay $800 more in income taxes.
As for Romney, “His point is first and foremost, ‘I want to cut (income tax) rates and then I’m going to pay for it by getting rid of other things in the tax code – reducing the value of itemized deductions, getting rid of some exclusions – in order to bring enough revenue in to fill the hole that I dug with (income tax) rate cuts,’” said Roberton Williams, a tax analyst at the Tax Policy Center in Washington.
In not offering specifics on his plan to limit deductions and other tax breaks, Romney likened himself to Ronald Reagan, who when he ran for president in 1984, “laid out the principles that he was going to foster,” as Romney said, but didn’t provide detailed plan. But Reagan did offer a specific tax reform proposal in early 1985.
Romney Campaign Senior Adviser Ed Gillespie joins Morning Joe to discuss some of the nuts and bolts of Romney's plans for tax reform. Which loopholes would Romney close as president?
Romney said in Wednesday night’s debate, “I'm going to work together with Congress to say, OK, what – what are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance? One way, for instance, would be to have a single number. Make up a number, $25,000, $50,000. Anybody can have deductions up to that amount. And then that number disappears for high-income people.”
Romney has proposed to scrap the Alternative Minimum Tax – the parallel tax system that limits the ability of higher-income people to use deductions to lower their tax liability. But he indicated in Wednesday night’s debate that he’d hit higher-income people perhaps even harder than the AMT does by denying them deductions entirely.
Romney has now floated three different possible limits on deductions – $17,000, $25,000 and $50,000 – and while also saying he would entirely eliminate tax deductions for some upper-income people.
To get a feel for how a $25,000 limit on deductions might affect taxpayers, consider that for those who take itemized deductions the average amount deducted last year was $25,769, according to the Tax Policy Center.
But the average is heavily skewed by the fact that high-income taxpayers take such large deductions. For those in the top one percent of the income distribution, the average mount deducted in 2011 was more than $173,000.
The vast majority of taxpayers have deductions which total less than $20,000. For itemizers in the middle of the income distribution the average amount deducted is about $16,000.
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney steps out of turn to point out errors he feels President Barack Obama made in describing his tax plan.
Of course for many taxpayers none of this is directly relevant to their own tax situation since two-thirds of taxpayers take the standard deduction and do not itemize. But they too would be affected by a change in tax policy that, for example, caused Americans to give less money to private schools, colleges, museums, and charities.
Diana Aviv, president of Independent Sector, a nonpartisan coalition of nonprofits, foundations, and corporate giving programs, said if under a Romney plan, deductions were limited to $17,000 or $25,000 and if much of what the taxpayer was deducting was mortgage interest and state and local taxes, then charitable deductions might be squeezed out.
“The charitable deduction doesn’t benefit the donor – the person of means – it benefits the charity,” she said. “So if the charitable deduction is clustered with these other tax deductions (such as the mortgage interest deduction) that actually do benefit the individual, there is no question in our mind that the charitable deduction will be the loser.”
Aviv said for people who itemize, how much money they give to charity “is entirely correlated with the tax incentive … There’s a mountain of evidence to show that the charitable tax incentive adds to the volume that people give. So we will see massive cuts in the level of giving to charitable organizations” if Congress limits deductions.
Leave a Comment:
No, Mitt will definitely cut his own taxes, and also cut the taxes of his bosses, such as the Koch Bros.
Shame on you, Mitt the Twit...your policy will increase the deficit even more.
dumb
Romney's tax plan is pure fantasy, he'll never be able to pay for it. If you are "broadening the base" it sounds like the middle class will pay for it.
Hey Keck, Bet you $ 10,000.00 dollars the 1% won't have a problem if ROBMEHOOD is elected !!!!
@keck #1.1:
...............................| dumb
hey, heck....I agree with you, Mitt the Twit is dumb - what do you think does 'twit' mean?
I'm a strong conservative and I say let ALL of the tax cuts expire. We need to pay off our debt. And it won't happen with just some of us paying more.
Get rid of Obama and get back on track.
Didn't Obama look out of his league the other night? And the liberal line of Mitt lied is pure BS. Right from the horses ass Mr. Ed. The left owns the biggest liar in politics with scum bag Bill Clinton.
Obama is killing the middle class. Time for him to be gone
Got to love how everyone is in favor of raising taxes, and no mention ever of cutting spending. As long as taxes are raised, no amount of any government reform will take place. Then when the crisis gets even bigger because of the inevitable spending increases, will everyone still be screaming for even higher taxes? Washington has been promising tax reform, spending cuts, eliminating duplicate programs, waste, fraud, and abuse for decades and here we are still just talking about them. Obama has yet to lay out his second term, or first for that matter, but you can take to the bank if re-elected tax increases will affect everyone.
Romney's strong performance of Lies fuels his party !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Like JH, ???
Americans have questions about Romney's Lying on the debate, how could we trust this Funky in the White House !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Keep these in mind...
The DO NOTHING GOP always VOTED "NO" to create JOBS!!!...
Sep 12__S.3457____Veterans Jobs Corps Act, S.Amdt.2789
Jul 17__S.3364____Bring Jobs Home Act
Jul 11__S.2237____Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act
Jun 29__S.2237____Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act
Jun 5___S.3240____Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012
Dec 15__H.R.3630__Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011
Nov 30__S.1917____A bill to create jobs by providing payroll tax relief for middle class families and businesses
Nov 3___H.R.674___3% Withholding Repeal and Job Creation Act
Nov 1___S.1769____Rebuild America Jobs Act
Oct 6___S.1660____American Jobs Act of 2011
Sep 24__S.3816____Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act
Aug 5___H.R.5297__Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010
Jun 23__H.R.4213__American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010
AND...
JOBS LEGISLATION BLOCKED BY HOUSE REPUBLICANS
An American jobs effort to end government contracts rewarding corporations that ship American jobs overseas. [Vote 19]
Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act – [Vote 38, Vote 30, Vote 189]
American Jobs Matter Act – [Vote 257]
National Manufacturing Strategy Act, - [Vote 279, Vote 721]
Advanced Vehicle Manufacturing Technology Act - [Vote 310]
Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act - [Vote 9, Vote 199, Vote 780]
A measure to promote jobs and innovation at home, - [Vote 490]
A measure for middle class families, - [Vote 676]
A measure to support American Manufacturers - [Vote 693]
A measure that places a priority on keeping jobs in America: - [Vote 710]
A measure to protect at least 10,000 American manufacturing jobs - [Vote 715]
A measure to ensure that American materials, - [Vote 792]
Does Obama have any control on these?
NO
Does the GOP control all of congress?
You bet they do.
Imagine the numbers if the GOP weren't such aholes.
Bbbbut... But... But... Mitt Romney said he would NOT cut taxes on the wealthy. That's what he said on Wednesday.
Of course he had been saying he WOULD cut taxes for everyone by 20%.
And he also said he would fire Jim Lehrer AND BIG BIRD ! :(
@JH
I find your position confusing. You say you want to see all Bush tax cuts expire, yet you promote voting for the party who has not only said those cuts cant be repealed, but they want to add more to it.
At least You realize that along with cuts we need to bring in more revenue.
This whole idea of lowering taxes and getting rid of deductions is unbelievable. Tax cuts are a blank check giveaway with no strings attached. Deductions should at least make sure that the money is being used for the betterment of the country.
I know I am gonna get hammered by those who say it is the peoples money in the first place not the governments, to them I have this to say. Do you live in a vacuum. Sure you went to work or built that company, but did you do it all from your home? Did you need roads and other infrastructure. Do you use utilities. If there is a crime at your business do you want the cops to show up or the fire department to put out any fires? None of us are happy with taxes but we would be much more unhappy without certain needed government services.
Even ole Jumpin' Joe said it himself: the middle class has been buried for the last four years. What does that say about Obama and his socialist-based policies?
Pigotry: I just love the way you start the vine by calling people names when you have nothing to say and nothing to contribute to the dialogue.
Exactly. I have not seen ONE economist that thinks Wrongme's plan will work. Every one of them ends up costing the middle class. I guess I have to look at Fox News, AKA BS Mountain.
Tax entitlements...the wealthy were killing us....Obama 2012
Romney 1040
If it were not for the rich paying taxes then this country would be in more of a mess than it is. Your taxes, at least those of you that are actually paying taxes, would have to go up tremendously.
What always just kills me in the discussion of taxes and politics. is the total omission of local property, and sales tax revenues. These are the taxes which directly affect the voter. It's property tax that pays for your schools, your teacher salaries and benefits. Federal taxes are paying for school lunch programs. Sales taxes pay off bond indebtedness, say for a sewer expansion project. Federal taxes pay for monitoring the cleanliness of the water once it is treated to insure people downstream in another state aren't sickened by upstream sewage dumping. There are federal, state, and local taxes. Sure there are federal guidelines to meet, such as The Clean Water Act, but the municipality ( for instance ) is not restricted in it's choice(s) of engineering solutions, thus the variety of waste water treatment technologies.
People will shop out of their community because of high sales taxes. People will reside out of the community they work in because of high property taxes. These are the Middle Class working people, not the ultra rich, nor the poverty bound. The federal government can't restrict you to a specific spot to do your shopping so bond issues get paid off, nor can they restrict public employees to live in the communities which pay ( through taxes ) their salaries and benefits.
Republicans know they could never attack popular programs like Social Security and Medicare directly -- it would be political suicide. So for a generation Republicans have utilized a strategy known as "starving the beast," which means depriving the government of revenue through tax cuts.
When democratically elected, accountable governmental power is disestablished, unaccountable corporate power will fill the void. That's what Republican blather about "over spending" really means.
Stop believing the lie that Mitt's tax policy will increase the deficit by 5 trillion over ten years. That projection is absolutely false because it does not take into account the job growth we are expected to experience in the next several years.
But of course the Libbys are so desperate they'll maintain a death grip on any lie that sounds good, because the fate of their party hangs in the balance.
Romney/Ryan 2012 (the end of an error)
@john doe; Job growth? How will we have job growth with automation and outsourcing taking thousands of jobs away yearly? We are the number one manufacturer on earth already. Please as I have asked others(Romney supporters) to no avail,where will these jobs magically grow from?
The math does not lie, although the bulk of the addition to the deficit would mostly come after Romney had served his terms it(his plan) still adds up up to and addditonal 3 bil plus a year for 10 yrs. I stated the other day that both would add to the deficit there is no way around it, except for some miracle of bipartisanship. You can only tame it you can not get rid of it.
We have had a deficit for hundreds of years, and it has been skyrocketing since 1982. Romneys words were very specious at the debate. Obama let him have his time on purpose. This is called giving him the rope, believe me Obama was not so reserved because he was being beat, ie the War is more important than a battle, and you must choose them wisely. Saving the salvos for when they really count.
When you dream all night you only remember the last dream before you wake up, not all the ones before. This I believe is the tactic of Obama, and the reason for his reverence at the first debate. What some are claiming as a loss is more of a tactic by Obama. Reason being Romney can be his own worst enemy with his specious words.
The fact checkers are showing this to be true.
So we cut deductions for the middle class but get rid of the inheritance tax so Paris Hilton doesnt have to pay her fair share?
JohnRN,
I am not in Paris Hilton's estate level yet I will be paying if Obama has his way. I earned every dime and invested. Never inherited anything other than the sale of my parents two bedroom house. Why should the government get o confiscate what I want my children to have?
Seems like Willard has a lot of explaining to do for his "portable" tax plan that changes latitude every time the wind blows.
This from a guy who WON'T show his taxes. Just say'in !
@JohnRN
While I understand your point, I think the inheritance tax is one of the worst taxes on the books. If I inherit from my parents why should I have to pay taxes again on what they already had been paying taxes on for years? Why should families have to sell off or go in debt when inheriting a piece of property or business that has been in that family for generations.
The right keeps harping on the fact that President Obama has not passed a budget when the facts are Congress passes budgets NOT the President. You could have every ingredient in the world to bake a cake but if the chef obstructs it, it will not be made. EVERY voter , no matter where you stand, as an AMERICAN, you need to look long and hard at who represents you. Look at what they truly stand for. Are they interested in protecting the ruling class (R and D both) or do they care that you have 4 kids and no job because the bank closed your business? Do they support the banks that close businesses or not? It's time to call "bull@!$%#" on the liars that keep saying the same thing over and over as if that will take the stain of untruth away. Have we become a country of sarcastic, selfish people that do not care about their fellow man? Bet they go to church every Sunday!. Have we become such a brain dead society that we really believe either Fox or MSNBC tells it like it REALLY is???I have two sons and when they fight I hear two different versions of what happened. I know the truth lies SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN, why can't the majority of Americans figure that out for themselves?
John Doe-2241225
Do you mean all the jobs that Obama (according to the right) failed to create? Because it's common knowledge that anything done in the way of job creation has a considerable lag time. So RobMe is positioning himself to take credit for Obama's efforts? That what it sounds like you're saying. That would line up with RobMe's past business practices if that's the plan.
By the way a 20% across the board cut will, in addition to hastening the insolvency of this country, come out to be about 5 Trillion. Cutting taxes on the wealthy, trickle down,and most other neo-con policies haven't worked. ( If they did work Reagan wouldn't have needed "revenue enhancements" in 1983 after cutting taxes in 1981.)The more they cut taxes the worse the country becomes financially.
They sure don't have a problem with Obama either, dude.
And the 99% under Obama?
Well, 23 million are under or unemployed and 47 million are on food stamps.
This is pretty comical.
If the Republicans strategy as you call it is "starving the beast", what is the Democrats strategy?
"The beast committed suicide"?? 7 trillion debt added in 4 years......more than all previous Presidents combined practically!!!
The article states "Congress wouldn’t have created each deduction if it didn’t have a specific policy purpose it was pursuing." Well, as long as we can agree the purpose was to extract a bribe, er, "campaign contribution" wink wink, I guess they have specific policy purposes, reelection for incumbents.
The best thing to happen is to eliminate ALL deductions and let economic enterprises stand on their own merit; everyone pays. Free market capitalism the way it is intended to be. And, the best part of all for the senators and congressmen is that over the next few decades they can resell all the eliminated deductions to ensure their reelection once again!
We've got the best congress money can buy.
America can't afford another republican president, look what happened with the last one and Romney thinks his policies were great enough to continue. Regan created the largest deficit in our history up to his time and raised taxes on the middle class to pay for lowering taxes on the wealthy. I think Romney is in line to do the same thing. How anyone in the middle class and poor class could support a republican has always been beyond my comprehension.
The average voter cannot comprehend $5 trillion over 10 years. The candidates need to come down to the level of most people and stop talking down to them. Spewing such large numbers only allows them to obfuscate the issue and lead the electorate with their attack rhetoric.
The surest way to balance the budget and reduce the deficit is to cut unnecessary spending and raise taxes. If the American people, especially those who tout "patriotism" are sincere about the necessity to reduce the deficit and leave the country in better shape for their children, then they'll be willing to pay a moderate increase in taxes, along with the 1%.
When revamping the tax code, start with the Earned Income Credit. It's abominable that single mothers with 5 kids by different fathers can drive $20,000 SUVs while their kids get taxpayer funded educations, taxpayer funded school lunches that contribute to obesity that is treated with taxpayer funded health care. All this while they get tax refunds in the thousands of dollars every year while paying less then 1/4 of their return in Federal withholding taxes. Let Obamacare stand and they'll at least PAY for their share of health care.
Not really, but spending was necessary to get us out of the Bush II recession and keep 10's of millions employed. Here are some facts you can check out though as to which party spends more than they take in.
Flat tax for everyone..!! You spend it, you pay it. Cut the I.R.S. employment by 70%.
Coporate tax rate of 39% from Clinton in 2000 = ZERO National Budgetary deficit redcorded in 2000 (Obama's proposal for next four years)
Coporate tax rate of 35% from 2001 Bush Coporate tax rates totaled in 2012 = $1.32 trillion National Budgetary deficit
Coporate tax rate of 28% Romney's prosal for next four years = $4.8 trillion deficit + present $1.32 trillion deficit equaling $6.12 trillion deficit.
It's a no brainer........folks.
In 2008, the National Budgetary deficit was $5 trillion after Bush 20012 coporate tax cuts......after the lower 35% Coporate tax rate was implemented from 39%.
What do you folks think will happen if 8 years of a 28% Coporate tax rate is enacted by Romney???
It's a no brainer.....
Even keck knows it....Romney isn't fooling anybody. Even if he proclaims BIg Bird costs the Nation $6.12 trillion.........
Im gonna leave partisan foolishness 4 u to keep.
Tax the rich more they will increase prices to compensate, that means u the consumer pays for it.
Taxes come out of the economy. Chose which spin u want to fantasize about. It does make more sense to tax the rich, saves money as less is more, less overhead for collection. Yet the rich will have an increasing influence over politics.
Outsourcing is the problem not taxes that is the bottom line.
Quit ur crying want a job move to china. They don't care about America only their bottom line.
What a great idea it was to allow the selling of American companies to foreign owners.
Spin spin spin where it stops nobody knows.,
Obama and Romney are not nationalists they are capitalists.
Sometimes it seems the plan is for Obama to win blaming debt on him and allowing safety net for the poor to be cut which will eventually justify the cutting of baby boomer benefits.
It is numbers buy my ideology.
I would have little problem with doing away with all tax cuts as long as all tax cuts go..They wouold have to include all cuts going to every business..they would have to go to every millionaire...everyone..no exceptions..but bet on this..the wealthy will be little effected by any tax cuts that harm the middle class..their lobbyist money will make sure they still get cuts of some kind. What we really need is to STOP all lobbying completely to get anything close to equal in our tax codes.
As we come full circle on tax deductions, should not the middle class and small business not be damaged as much as profitable corporations? Camp and Baucus need to go easy on us. And get SOMETHING done! Lead you phony bastards!
Obama has set the Table for 12 Million more jobs to be created in the next four Years, why would anyone of sound mind Vote for Robme who supports the same policys of Bush that tanked the USA and lost a Million jobs a Month his last year in office. Yes we are better off than 4 years ago, and if you are not take some prsonal responsibility, everyone I know who did not have a job 2 years ago now currently has a Good Job, and with Obama at the Helm there will be 12 Million more jobs
Obama/Biden going Forward for all Americans
oh for crying out loud... since when do elections alter US policy on taxes.. or anything?
I mean sure, there's a lot of talk around politicians disagreeing with each other... but if you don't listen to the talk (and why should you?) but just watch what they do... There is one political party in the US and it is the DemocratsandRepublicans.
These "two parties" (using the term sarcastically) have identical policies on everything..(except a couple of red herring non issues they have agreed to fight about) and should Mitt win the election, I'm confident he will be able to sustain all the Obama policies as well as Obama has carried all the Bush policies... maybe even better.
After all, in a one party system like ours, he wouldn't have a choice, anyway.
We get a choice by deciding who we are going to vote in.
Romney changes his positions daily, I don't trust him, and won't vote for him.
Let's face it, once Romney was elected he could do anything he wanted.
Romney & Ryan the 1% Mega Rich Pimps, these two Clowns will paint America Pink !!!!!
Kocheads say $ 8.00 Hr., or Pink Slips for the Middle Class !!!!!!!!!!!!
Hello Eric.. and Patriot, I suppose...You know, by some accounts, Obama changed many of his positions as soon as he won the election... just in example, the one about not shutting down state authorized marijuana dispensaries.
While The Party painted him as an apologist and a panderer to Muslims, he quietly went about killing more Muslims than all previous presidents put together.. including George. Obama had us in three wars at once.... supposedly he didn't have a choice about that... and I think that's probably right... as Romney would not have a choice but to uphold all the "Obama policies" were he to win..
And Obama signed the Patriot act and Indefinite Detention, effectively repealing the bill of Rights.. (They don't need warrants to observe or search you, and once arrested, they don't need to press charges or have a trial.) ...and yet Obama refers to himself as an American... meaning someone with the ideals and love of freedom of an American.
Exactly what would Mitt do that Obama wouldn't? Lower taxes? Taxes are lower now than under Bush.
Seriously, Eric...what sort of stuff might Mitt do if elected...that Obama wouldn't?
You know, Eric... folks choose their candidates like they choose their sports teams. It's not about policy... it's about a tribal identification thing.
We can allow Obama to be a lying thief, because somehow, the story goes... he's better than the other lying thief.
Now I know there are idiots out there who think Obama is a Muslim socialist... they get that stuff from The Party, and that's all the thinking they're going to do. I know there are folks out there who think Romney is somehow more business friendly than Obama.
But does everyone have to go through life with someone else's blinders on?
You know... the Frank Dodd act has been rendered toothless and useless... by "both parties" and under Obama's watch, banks and financial institutions have no more limitations than they did in 2006.
So Eric... What are we voting for Obama for? Because Mitt might be worse?
Myself, I'm voting second party.
He will do what he says. Not like the bum we have now.
Yearning: I agree with you completely. I'm tired of voting for the lesser of the same evil. This time I decided to vote for the person I'd actually like to see in the White House, not just the one who can win. If we all did that, maybe we'd get a govt that actually works for us, the taxpayer, not special interest groups or a party agenda.
But you get political cowards who vote because they don't want the other guy to win, not because they believe in their own guy. You want Obama or Romney because of who they are? Fine, vote for them, but don't vote for them just because no one else stands a chance. They never will if the voting public is that dishonest.
As for deductions and credits, get rid of them all. No one should be itemizing. Make everyone pay their tax bracket.
The American People are getting tired of supporting the 1% Lavish life style with tax cuts they don't need !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"When is Trickle Down going to kick in" America is still waiting ??????????????
Based on Obama's open mike comment to Putin that was caught on tape, Obama will do whatever he feels like doing IF he is reelected. What does that tell you about the man's plans?
The Republican opposition to Big Government programs like Social Security and Medicare is not due the national debt. The national debt is due to the Republicans' opposition to these programs since they can only be financed by a system of progressive taxation -- which is the real Republican target.
What would Mitt do? Let's see the Republicans have been against entitlements since they were created. Do you really believe that Romney will save Medicare? I don't.
Do you believe he won't raise taxes on the middle class and won't cut them for the wealthy? I don't.
Trickle down economics is what got us into this mess, I won't vote for someone supporting that kind of policy.
Trickle down government does not work either. Confiscating other people's money should not work. You are so to the left to make anything you say not believable.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain
rukidding47
No one will do exactly what they say they will do. You have to vote based on trust and values.
I will not vote for someone that can change his policies from extreme right to left-centrist on a dime whenever the occasion calls for it. You say he will do what he says? Well, since Romney has "said" about everything, you'll probably be right... whatever he does he probably said at some point.
Vote the grafters out, all of them.
You libs kill me. The Bush tax cuts reduced the rates for the lowest taxpayers the greatest. 15% to 10% is 33% tax decution for those of you who are math illiterate...further, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000. So, as a portion of their income, the poor got a better deal. And, what happened? REVENUES (what really matters) to the federal governemnt INCREASED by 50% from when Clinton left and 2007 and the Dems started to control spending...look it up...$1.8 trillion in revenue in 2000 and $2.7 trillion in 2006 and 07. This was AFTER 9/11 and the mini depression that happened after that and two wars (that BOTH Dems and Repubs voted for after BOTH saw the intelligence). The revenue now is about the same that it was when Obama came to Washington but b/c of the Dem spending, there are $1.4 trillion in deficits and not $400 billion like they were under Bush (too much, but WAY better than now)...so, it's the spending stupid...
I do wish Romney would not increase military spending, but at least that is part of what the federal government is for...
So, for all you libs out there, reduced tax rates (permanent...not this stupid payroll tax cut that's only temporary), helps improve the economy and increases revenue to the government...because there is more money to spend. What was a better "investment" in the economy...the $2.5 billion in tax breaks the oil companies got as part of doing business...or the $90 billion in green energy money that has gone down the drain...
Silly Republicans, you cut taxes and reduce revenues as a way of making a financial crisis so you have the excuse to cut entitlements.
If tax cuts created jobs we be at 4% unemployment by now.
Romney and the Republicans = failed policy and failed economic plans.
Patriotic American, you really have this 1% obsession up your butt. Man, get a job or education or both and quit with your class envy. The government was not formed to support slugs. People who are successful did not do so to support slugs.
And by the way, how do the 'American people' support the 1%? Have you ever tried medication?
Realy Eric? " A tax cut means higher family incomes and higher business profits and a balanced Federal Budget,...Prosperity is the real way to balance the budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and incomes we can expand the tax revenue and Finally bring our budget into balance!" John Kennedy
Back when the Liberal ideaology guided the Democrat Party Platform, before it was murdered by this Progressive idiocy, Democrats understood Economics!
I am amazed... Here are folks who are arguing the Bush tax cuts... and neither arguer is aware that the Bush cuts are still in effect?
You folks honestly don't know that taxes are lower now than under Bush?
You don't know that Obama is just another politician? Just like Bush? You don't know Obama has kept all the Bush policies and added Mitt's health plan to boot?
We are doomed.
This is why Congress has a 20% approval rating and a 95% re election rate. This is why the US is 18th in the world for economic freedom... too many DemocratsandRepublicans.
@Yearning, Yep the bush tax cuts that are supposed to create jobs are still in effect with only minimal job creation happening. These arent tax cuts they are corporate welfare. I say we keep the cuts but tie them to 60% of the money going to job creation and wage/benefits improvement for the average worker.
Lets see more people who are working and getting raises mean more people spending on products that improve the corporations bottom line. The boom of the 90's was due to the over borrowing of consumers, and we saw how that worked out.
Another thing, if people working and making better wages they are paying more taxes and collecting less entitlements. Win win for everyone.
How are either of these Presidential candidates planning to get any limitation of tax deductions accomplished when virtually all of the Republican members of Congress have signed a blood oath to Grover Norquist?
That's easy, rip up the pledges.............
Let's do a Norquist-ectomy.
don - More importantly, who in their right mind signs a pledge to Grover Norquist?
We should have Grover Norquist put on a Ballot for all to Vote these Dirtbags out of America, let them go to Iran with their Buddies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We started in 2000 with annual surpluses with the Clinton tax rates, then enacted the Bush tax cuts, immediately started racking-up huge deficits, and the Republicans now try to convince us the problem is one of "over spending." Republicans could apply that economic theory to unemployment and reassure the jobless that they are just "over-spending."
Signing an oath to Norquist is actually a violation of the oath to uphold the constitution. Anyone signing such an oath should be arrested and charged with treason...
Sorry to bust your bubble Chad, but there NEVER WERE ANY REAL SURPLUSES during the Clinton era.
He came pretty close 1 year (only added $18B to the debt), but he never made it into the black.
The projections for 2000 and beyond were for surpluses, but there were a lot of assumptions baked into those projections. Also there were several unpredictable events which would have impacted those projections in both directions.
The bottom line is that our government is addicted to SPENDING. Just like you don't cure alcoholics by giving them more alcohol, you cant cure spendaholics by giving them more money to spend.
The best prescription going forward is to starve the beast until we get to a balanced budget through a combination of cuts and growth. Then, once we are in balance we can do a temporary increase in taxes to go directly to paying down the debt.
Any tax increases now just allow our irresponsible government to avoid dealing with the problem and kicking the can further down the road when the problem will be MUCH larger (interest rates will ultimately go up and the interest on our debt will balloon and blow a fatal hole in our budget).
Tough times require tough medicine. It's time we take ours before we end up mortally wounded.
Yes,and the poor and middle class are the ones that suffer because of the spendthrifts.
The 1 % ers are fine in a good economy or bad but,when they mess up the pecking order we have to hurt even more than we are all ready.
Obama/Biden The right choice for America
Where is Warnout -buffett, the obama poster boy of his 1%ers....that is right, he fired 2000 people at BOA and the Pravda Press has been hiding it!! 4 years and the economy is wrecked, No Jobs, No Homes, No gas for cars, Drugs flow easily across the border, No food==food stamp increase, IslumBroHOOD is war mongering the Middle East.. American Agents and Soldier being killed every day===NO plan!! This craziness in DC must stop, Mr. Empty chair Prez!!
Hang on to your wallets and purses... The tax man is coming for your mortgage interest deduction! Just like what under Regan when they got rid of the credit card interest deductions...
I don't mind reform as long as the middle class doesn't pay the tab. If it's fair, Americans will go for it.
Always fair when someone else pays.
"ROBMEHOOD's" ( Lies will Backfire ) !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone should pay the tab. Trying to make the rich pay for everything is how we ended up with half the population paying no income tax at all.
Depends what number they pick for the new standard deduction. The only people who will scream are the ones that took out loans for houses that were way above their income. Tax payer should not be subsidizing mcmansions. Pretty much you want to pretend you are rich then pay taxes like a rich person.
john
When Reagan AND the Democratic controlled Congress eliminated that deduction among others they also LOWERED the Tax Rate. HUMMM. Isn't that exactly what Romney wants to do,lower rates and eliminate deductions???
Tax payer should not be subsidizing mcmansionsjohn-98241 Since when is allowing a person to keep the MONEY THAT THEY WORKED FOR considered a subsidy? How about we start making that 47% of the population who pays nothing start paying their fair share? And while we're at it, get rid of all the welfare cheats and get rid of welfare and loads of other entitlements.
Poor people don't make enough money to pay taxes. Wealthy folks do, and have the most tax loopholes.
Where are the loopholes for the poor people if they have to pay taxes too.
Unfortunately, Republicans do run government like a business in that they sell this steaming turd like modern American corporations do -- with slick propaganda and deceptive advertising on TV. Just as they lie that deficits are caused by "over-spending" instead of "tax cuts," Republicans now utilize rigid message discipline and clever distortion -- mixed with shameless lies -- more resembling a psychological warfare operation than traditional political campaigns.
Eric... 47% of us are not poor. So more should be paying something. Why do I get to pay for their kids?
lulu98 - they already pay a tax, its called the I'm poor and my life sucks tax. So a married couple with two kids would need to make a combined 26K or under to not pay taxes. I mean really, would it make you feel better if they paid a dollar? These people are scraping by day by day living paycheck to paycheck and have very little to show for their work.
I once worked for a lady who grew up dirt poor and ended up owning a ton of rental properties. Every year around tax time she would be in her restaurant doing her taxes and say the same thing "I hate to write this check, but you know what? The fact that I'm doing this means I made good money this year."
The point is, every person who is making poverty level wages and not paying taxes would be more than happy to make more money to the point that they owed.
And that's about 8% of the 47%. The rest is made up mostly of elderly (very little taxable income), working kids (remember those $3K 1040EZ returns?), and military. Would it make you feel better if Grannie pitched in 'something'?
www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/19578858/romneys-47-made-up-of-seniors-students-military
Jay,
These people are all not in the shape you describe. There are a percentage that make several 100k who manage to have enough deductions to pay zip. Not really in the 1% but comfortable. Some of these people I am sorry to say did not take advantage of what they could have. Here is an example in my own family. My husband paid for all of his education up thru a doctorate. One sister paid for her MS. The other sister was a spoiled brat and her parents paid for 3.5 years of college at which time she dropped out. Got married, had a kid one month later. Her husband who had a father teaching at a respected university, dropped out of that university although he had free tuition. Drifted among low paying jobs, separated from my SIL when the kid was 8 and never paid child support. My SIL qualified to go back to school...he'll my Inlaws would ave paid but my SUL could no be bothered. Moved in with in laws, moved in with them for 5 years and never worked. After they finally got sick of that, they forced her to move out and get a job...at a call center. Obviously pays lower wages. She pays no taxes. Ok, she has little money having blown anything from my in laws who have passed. Tell me why I should feel sorry for her situation?
There are a lot of people like her who just refused to work hard to accomplish a good life. I know people who started tat a community college, taking one class at a time, then did the same at the four year school. Sometimes you do need to get a grip on your life.
LuLu,
You confuse opportunity with outcome. If everyone worked hard to get a good job, who would work at McDonalds or clean the toilets in your office?
They come after the mortgage interest deduction, there will be an enormous amount of foreclosed houses. Think about it....oh yeah, the hill don't care, they will just keep taken our money. Those fools need to quit bickering (on both sides) and quit the hatred and remember they work for us. Fire them all and put some middle class, blue collar workers in there.
!st...do away with IRS. ..2nd make straight 10% Fed tax on EVERYTHING sold....you buy , you pay tax!! Rich buy higher end stuff, they will pay a higher tax for it...from gum to houses to yachts , no deductions, no vodoo math to figure tax rates, no IRS forms to fill out---no Gov. holding our money interest free until we make the give it back!!!...News flash, a tax return check is NOT free money from Uncle Sugar...it has always been YOUR money!!
lulu.....it is called class warfare and that divide and conquer crap the the Chicago mOBpolitical machine uses all the time!!
u are exactly right border joe, do away with ALL deductions and have everyone pay the 10% on everything, that way it gets everyone fairly. Don't matter if ya make a bazillion dollars or 10 dollars were all gong to pay same amount.
the democrats wanted the bush tax cuts to go away.
.....they want americans to pay more taxes.
keck
There probably would not be a need for additional taxes if we did not have to pay for the wars Bush started without reasonable cause.
Conservatives loved those wars. I wonder how much they would have loved those wars if Bush had raised taxes to pay for them.
Republicans want to "starve the beast" to put the country in a financial crisis so they have an excuse to cut entitlements.
So be prepared that Romney will cut taxes and not have a way to pay for them.
The war in Afghanistan was started without reasonable cause?
The Iraq war cost somewhere around 800 billion when Obama took over (debt clock), and he has spent over 6 TRILLION in 3 1/2 years?! WTFU- it's not the war that caused our depression. It is the Clinton housing bubble, epic fail stimulus and union buy outs.
keck: The Democrats are right. We should be paying more taxes, not just the rich or the poor who don't pay anything. Everyone. Kill all the deductions and credits; make everyone pay their tax bracket in full.
Crystal
But the Bush tax cuts are the main drivers of the debt. Also Bush refused to pay for the Afganistan and the prescription drug program. After 9/11 had Bush came out and said 'we have been attacked, we are going to get these bast@ rds but it's going to cost us' and raised taxes to cover it I don't think one person would have questioned him. No, what we got was 'here's a few dollars, go shopping'. And to be honest, had he don't that the housing market might not have collapsed because those who bought too much probably wouldn't have. We'll never know. What we DO no is that trickle down hasn't been working for 30 years. Just how much longer do we need to go down that path to learn our lesson? Until the middle class completely disappears and the 1% has even more money?
And as to your assertion that the President is a big spender look at this and remember that all the Bush policies are included.
Off the cliff with YOU and Grover!!!
Obama/Biden 2012
No justification for the troop levels and equipment committed to Afghanistan. How do you justify a full scale was to capture a band of terrorists? Use intelligence to find where bin Laden was hiding, then deal with it with the force necessary for the job.
Furthermore, if we have a justifiable war, then taxes should be raised to pay for it. If taxpayers have to pay for the war they can decide whether it is justifiable, right?
Like our hypothetical Republican "businessmen," Republicans in Congress and in state governments they control have embarked on a radical program of governmental disestablishment through tax cuts and the resulting DE-funding of necessary government functions. State governments across the country are staging "going out of business" sales and liquidating state assets to private corporations at bargain prices.
Guys-
Bill Clinton thought both wars were justified...of course, that was before he was against them...
BTW Chad-
The states with Repbulican governors have the lowest unemployment and growth. No one is dying in the streets in those areas...it's the Democrat run areas that are turning into disasters...Detroit, Chicago, CA...
And, will you libs PLEASE look up revenue to the gov't from 2000 to 2007 and see how much revenue the tax cuts resulted in b/c the ecnomy grew!! And, 95% of people were employed (i.e. "broaden the base").
And, last time I checked, the vast majority of Dems in DC voted for both wars (on intelligence everyone saw) and the prescription drug program. Why can't you admit, ever since the Dems have had control of at least 2/3rds of the federal government, this country has gone downhill...and, if we are still blaming the Repubs for the problems, then the Dems can't fix it. Frankly, get some small gov't Tea Party people in control, and watch this country take off...
Paul
Lots of people thought the wars were justified until they learned that the evidence put forth by the Bush administration was false. Lots of people believed that Bernie Madoff was protecting their financial interests.
Sometimes lies work to convince others. Why criticize those who were lied to rather than the liars?
So Don, you actually think President Bush (along with every other intelligence agency) made everything up just go to to war. And that Bill Clinton, who agreed with Bush on both wars, was in on the conspiracy? Please...
There were WMDs....small amounts, but there were...hindsight is often 20/20, but both Democrats and Republicans were for that war. Only Obama was for Libya. He didn't even bring it to Congress to vote...so, only he has blood on his hands for that one...
Paul
Try to participate in a reasonable discussion here. That fact the Bill Clinton supported the wars does not mean that he was "in on the conspiracy." It means that he believed Bush and members of his administration, including Colin Powell, when they said they had irrefutable, "slam dunk" intelligence. Once again, a person who believes false information is not part of a conspiracy. He is the victim, in this case, of a President who was too eager to go to war.
There was evidence that WMDs did not exist and when Wilson noted that contrary evidence it was ignored. Subsequently, apparently as punishment, Cheney, Libby and others outed his wife as a CIA agent, thereby ruining her career. If you want to talk about conspiracies, that is a good place to start.
Here's the thing, Paul. If you lie to me and I believe you, am I part of your conspiracy?
If you want to compare Libya with Iraq and Afghanistan, be my guest, but it is obvious that your partisanship is affecting your ability to reason or discuss the issue rationally.
Paul
My main point here is that if we have a war we should pay for it. How many people would have supported the invasion of Iraq if they had known that their taxes would be raised to pay for it? How many people would have supported the war if we had re-instituted the draft to provide the military personnel to fight that war? Would you have volunteered or sent family members into battle?
Bush was wrong to commit our troops to battle without the same kind of "beyond reasonable doubt" we require to convict someone in our courts?
Bush was wrong to shelter the war from the citizens by not requiring them to pay for the war, have their sons and daughters conscripted to fight the war or see the pictures of the flag-draped coffins as they arrived at Dover AFB.
Hey biden....explain why BOZOhussen went all over telling everyone that a youtube video killed the USA embassy people in the Middle-East??...Even Over-the-Hill'ry says it was Muslim-Terrorists!!
Even the Prez. of Libya says it was not the video!! .. Jimmy Carter did nOT have the embassy people murdered!! but then they had Marines...The cables from the embassy asking for security are being hidden with the rest of obama's records!!
What a liar and incompetent leader we have..OMG===ObamaMustGOooo!!
He even stood before the UN and belittled our Constitution and 1 st Amendment rights!!
Let's get rid of tax deductions for children!! Why does the tax system reward people for having kids?? If you want to have children that's fine - but you should pay for them yourself and if you can't afford it then you shouldn't be having them. There's 2.1 Billion in savings.
Your sooooooo community minded. (rolls eyes).
I'm guessing you have kids. (vomits a little)
That is what I mean about someone else paying. I pay for someone with 8 kids while my husband and I thought two is what we could afford. The renter wonders why he is paying for some elseS mortgage deduction, on and on. Our tax laws have become absurd.
The goal there is to encourage people to make more future taxpayers...
Can't we just get more future taxpayers from Mexico?
Let's get rid of GIVING PEOPLE WELFARE!
1.2 trillion dollars in Bush tax cuts have been added to the deficit to bribe the rich to create jobs. They took the money(welfare for the rich) and put in their pocket adding to their record profits, and not creating jobs. Obama should not have extended them in 2010, they do not work and those who are saying Obama hasn't created enough jobs are also saying they don't work.
This is in reply to #3.6
"The best prescription going forward is to starve the beast until we get to a balanced budget through a combination of cuts and growth. Then, once we are in balance we can do a temporary increase in taxes to go directly to paying down the debt."
Please explain where this growth will come from. Why do you business people insist on seeing government as a business? Government maintains its citizenry - it does not produce anything except human resources! No wonder all of you are so excited at the thought of businessman Romney at the helm. Even he knows those skills will be useless in government, and I see him just wanting the Presidency as a trophy - which he sure hasn't earned...........in the sense of never having shown much empathy for the very citizenry gov't is created to maintain.
Mike, I have 4 kids and agree with you. My decision to have children is a personal choice and I shouldn't get a tax break for it. There are so many simple little changes to the tax code based on personal lifestyle decisions that would increase revenue.
Interesting that those credits were started by Repubs, as they want to encourage large families, apparently. Where were your arguments then? You should probably argue for taking away the standard deductions as well, as that is impacted by # in household. Are you okay with Romney saying as he did in the debate that he won't raise taxes on the middle class, meaning he won't raise the tax rate OR cut deductions? How is he going to pay for the promised tax cuts? Why should he want them to get more tax cuts when he already complained (as do many of you on here) that they aren't paying taxes anyway (remember the 47%)? 2/3 of the people in that category are making between $20,000-and millions per year and using totally legal tax deductions to lower their rate to zero. Why is that not ok for them, but is ok for Romney to use deductions? I personally don't think charitable contributions should be able to be deducted. Charity should come from the heart, not the calculation of how much money this will save people. Guess that's too much to ask in this "Christian"nation.
Well finally, something that makes sense. We will never address the national debt if conservatives continue to see a surplus as a reason to lower taxes. No body ever over paid taxes, it should have gone toward paying down the debt. Imagine where we would be if the Bush tax cuts were never passed.
Without the Bush tax cuts the bottom rate would be 15% not 10%, an increase of 50%!! Also the # paying no federal income tax would decrease from 47% to 25%. Increased taxes would not be used to "pay down the debt" as long as we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend!!!!
TES
Circular logic. Increased revenue (taxes) would mean we wouldn't be borrowing as much. The problem arose because Bush not only cut revenue (taxes) but increased spending at the same time. Rather like you quitting your job which pays $25/hour, buying a big house and car, and taking a job that pays $10/hour. Not a wise move for your personal finances nor for a government.
Oppie's right, in good times the government shouldn't cut taxes, they should be putting it away for a rainy day so when we have a crash (which we always will) the government can afford to spend to get the economy going. Or to use the household finances analogy, so if you get laid off you can tap your savings rather than fund your lifestyle from your credit card.
DSB-
The Bush tax cuts did NOT decrease revenues...my goodness, didn't any of you take a math class...or now how to go to the federal government websites to determine how much revenue the federal government obtained AFTER the tax cuts! Look it up...geesh...we got into trouble due to increase spending...the Dems have doubled down on all of that...tax revenues now (total) are about the same as they were in 2007 (when the Dems took over spending)...this total is about $2.7 trillion in revenues (which was a lot greater than the $1.8 trillion in revenue in 2000)...and we have $1.4 trillion in annual deficits vs $400 billion when two wars were active in 2007. Bush was bad with spending, Obama and the Dems are HORRIBLE...
Paul,
Are you talking about the tax cuts that Bush started during a war (unprecendented by the way), with the war's costs not being on the books, or are you talking about the needless Bush war on Iraq that took efforts away from Afganistan, forcing Obama to having to spend more money there, or are you talking about the stimulus bill started under Bush that Obama continued to save the economy from another great depression?
There is a major difference:
Romney wants to cut taxes, that based on it being a % means much better $ deal for the rich, and he wants to give a LOT more to the military. He says he will cut services, but every non partisan tax house agrees, there isn't enough to cut to make up that amount of a difference...
Those things mean that Romney MUST cut the deductions.... Where Obama doesn't have to because he is willing to raise taxes on the 1%
Just sayin....
You do understand that the term nonpartisan, on both sides, is nonsense? It is a technical term having to do with how they are formed. Has zip to do with biases.
not really. Romney said to cut tax RATEs, not tax, which means taking away some deductions/tax loopholes. it is not the same thing as cutting tax.
if you understand what he was saying, more or less Simpson-Bowles ideas, you probably would like what he said on tax.
And the tax increase on the 1% won't make a tiny dent in the deficit but it certainly will make many math impaired people happy.
Yes, raise taxes but on someone else!! Of course it sounds good to the other 99% (think buys votes)! They are all for shared sacrifice as long as someone else is doing the sacrificing!
Yes, our nation has resurrected the Roman bread and circuses.
Why should the middle class and poor pay for wars? I am tired of people getting hit on what the stupid idiots do in the government.We are tired of paying it all and the 1% have all the breaks and pay little tax rates
TES, one of the few people who get it!.
The Dem liberal slug way: Raise taxes on someone else.
Flat tax.
If you're going to modify the tax code we can start by getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction.
How about we get rid of welfare??????? AND ILLEGAL ALIENS??????
Alan and rhcrest, you guys are going to be banned from this Dem liberal slugfest board. Those kind of facts go against everything the libs believe.
rhcrest,
Apparently you don't realize that welfare is about 5% of the budget-doesn't make a dent in the deficit. Medicare, Social Security, and Defense are the main concerns. And the most popular and expensive tax deduction is that on home mortgage. That doesn't sound as good when it hits close to home people, does it? That's why Romney won't admit it, now, anyway.
Two words, flat tax of 15%, then everybody would be paying their fair share.
Good idea. It can be a one page bill, simple enough for anyone with a 4th grade education to understand.
Yep, a flat tax would really be great. Until everybody starts tinkering with it. Then we wind up back where we are today: a gazillion deductions, loopholes, rebates to those who paid nothing, etc, etc, etc. As soon as that one goes to the floor of the House and Senate, every mother's son (and daughter) in both Houses will start wanting to play with it trying to show everyone back home how smart they are and how they can "bring home the bacon" for their constituents.
I have love the principle for 30 years. Recognized that the reality won't even resemble the proposal.
The problem with a flat tax is someone say makes 10k per year, paying $1500 in taxes would be very painful on the other had if someone makes 100k per year and pays 15k in taxes, it wouldn't really hurt them.
Well for a flat tax to work it would also need to state that citizens pay taxes on assets held abroad as well or you will see an outflow of money like we have now to avoid taxes.
We already have to pay taxes on foreign held assets. The government does allow a deduction for foreign taxes paid on those assets. There are few tax shelters left, and they are slowly being closed.
Gary,
That only works if the govt knows about it!
Unemployment at 7.8%, home
values are going up. both indicate that the economy is improving and we are on
the right track.
Romney, campain on no tax cut
for the rich, spend on education and tax cut for the middle, and if they get
elected, they will do exactly the opposite and we will dip into another recession
In the post World War II era
government revenue fell back initially but then began a slow increase, peaking
at 33.1 percent of GDP in the REGAN recession year of 1982 and 37.5
percent of GDP in the BUSH recession year of 2001. Federal revenue has
remained relatively steady, holding between 15 and 20 percent of GDP. But state
and local revenue have increased substantially. State revenue broke 8 percent
of GDP in the recession year of 1982 and thereafter has fluctuated between 8
and 10 percent of GDP. Local revenue broke 6 percent in 1982 and thereafter has
fluctuated between 6 and 8 percent of GDP.
Total Government Revenue
in the United States
-5yr -1yr Fiscal Year 2013 +1yr +4yr
Federal Direct Revenue
$2.9 trillion
State Direct Revenue
$1.6 trillion
Local Direct Reveue
$1.2 trillion
Total Revenue 35% GDP
$5.7 trillion
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/
Were the hell he is going to get
5 trillion for the rich and 2 trillion for the military spending and 10%
reduction of corporate income tax
Raise federal income tax on the
middle class
Go after the disabled and slash
Medicaid by 30%. Medicare into voucher program in 5 years, 760,000 cut of
government and federal jobs, cut education funding and all domestic spending
Couple of questions: If the unemployment numbers really did fall by .03% and only 114,000 thousand were employed, even adding in the 86,000 "undercounted" from last month, that still leaves over 200,000 thousand unaccounted for this month! ( It would take 456,000 people to be taken off the rolls for a .03% fall), what was their fate?
If the Housing market is doing so well, why did Barnanke feel we needed QE-3, seemingly forever?
tedcrawford, you certainly are not implying that the Administration could or would have anything to do with these distorted figures, are you? We all know those guys wouldn't play with numbers just before the election.
After all, isn't it all of us bad Republicans and independents who lie???????
The Reagan budgets increased military spending in an arms race with the Soviets. State spending is an issue at state capitols and homestead exemption caps have fueled all types of local revenue increases with fees and sales tax increases or broadening of the tax base.
Vote out any politician who took the Norquist pledge, they are supposed to take an oath to the Constitution, not Norquist. Maybe I am dreaming, but a representative should be representing their district or state, not any political party, and all the people who voted for them or not.
If Obama prevails and raises his taxes "on the Rich", PPACA is allowed to mature, and his flunkies at DOE and EPA continue on their egregious regulatory frenzy, the resultant business closures and increasing unemployment will shrink the base.
With his perchant for increasing, and creating new entitlement plans, IE Unemployment forever, Free medical care for all, Amnesty for all illegals, open Borders, I'll pay your mortage, ETC. Not only will deductions disappear, but EVERYBODIES taxes will increase and HUGHLY!
There is nothing about Obama care or any other proposal, in practice or as an idea, that has "free" medical care. Somebody pays for it and the only question is who. Nor does anyone advocate open borders. Nor amnesty. If your statements are what you consider reality, you need to get a reality check and stop listening to your nut wing buddies.
Jamie, "if you think that medical care is expensive now, just wait until it's free".
It is very unlikely the home mortgage deduction would be done away with. Given the losses in the home mortgage market, the lack of the deduction would just throw the housing market into a new tailspin. However, the deduction might be done away with for 2nd homes or high income people.
I doubt that the deductions would change for investment in rental property (as opposed to the second home that you use), as it would further depress the housing market as well.
When you plow your way through the platitudes and ambiguous language, it comes down to this: the middle class will pay and the corporations and the rich will not.
As much as I feel Obama would be better than Romney, I fully believe Obama will lose this election as a result of the first debate. Battleground states are starting to swing to or have swung to Romney the past couple of days. With early voting in some states and absentee ballots, many of those voting will have that negative debate impression of Obama in their minds. No matter they will have two more presidential debates. Once they've voted, they can't change their minds if Obama has two great debates going forward. Nope. Damage has been done and I think Obama senses how much damage has occurred from this single 90 minute performance or lack of a performance.
Only hope now would be the Dems retaining control of the Senate and setting a new filibuster record the Republicans have set the prior 3+ years. I'd rather go over the fiscal cliff and let the chips fall where they may.
Truth is Romney may have had a fighting chance, but not now, too late! He's been all over the map with his positions that get adjusted with the crowd he happens to be addressing. The Debates do increase water cooler talk etc., but once people get to thinking about the election and realize they cannot keep up with Romney's positions they say"What does he really stand for", it's his own fault. If you ask me what I did yesterday and I say fixed my car, no I cut the grass. But yesterday you said I went to a tire dealer and that all I did all day. After you changed your story ten (10) times I going to conclude that your hiding something or your an idiot. Ergo., Mr. Romney
I've posted elsewhere that I feel Romney is a pathological liar and gave reasons for that conclusion. At the end of the day, though, our country is filled with a lot of pathological idiots. I've been watching the polls constantly and I assure you there has been a shift the past couple of days towards Romney in the battleground states just at the moment people in a great many states will be able to vote early. I may be wrong, but think Obama sealed his fate.
Right, Romney lies but Obama evolves. Where is the deficit reduction? Where were the guards for the ambassador to Libya? Try reading Bob Woodward's book for a different perspective of the very arrogant Obama.
Does no one understand that they will all raise taxes? They have to, the extent of government debt ensures it. Personally I (and many others) think we are past the point of no return; severe inflation, depression and economic collapse are inevitable. The only thing in question is how quickly will it progress.
If you had a choice between $250 simply handed to you and you don't have to do a darn thing, no questions asked, or, earn $600 taxable at 50% but you'll have to do a little bit of time and effort, which one would you choose?
Unfortunately, a lot of lazy bastards will take the $250. The money comes from those who chose the $600 and had to earn it. This will only work until those who chose the $600 will keep more than $250 after taxes. Where will the $250 come from if nobody wants to earn $600 before taxes?
Money does not grow on trees. Liberals, wake-up!!!
I forgot. What was the reason the Democrats didn't reform the tax code when they had the opportunity?
Who's going to make the Fox-Rush crowd understand that Obama doesn't wants to raise or create new taxes.
Obama just wants the Bush tax cuts to expire and go back to the rates they were.
But this time, Obama just wants to keep the cuts for the middle class.
Expiring taxes does not violate the GOP Norquest Pledge.
Remember when Bush inherited the Clinton surplus he said this is not the time to raise taxes?
Then after Bush the GOP creates a deficit and they say this is not the time to create taxes.
I have a question.
When is the time to raise taxes?
Why do we have a tax system for if the GOP don't want any?
I bet if you call them fees they'll be OK with that.
That's because taxes are for public and govt services.
Fees are for privatized and corporate expenses.
Both are revenues, but the Republican'ts won't raise any for "The people" (The government)
Have you not looked at what is coming in 2013 and 2014 with the new healthcare mandates? Or are those taxes not taxes? And we still don't know (thank you for that Nancy P.) how much the whole thing will cost.
Bo
A person that is able to explain how Obamacare doesn't raise or create new taxes.
Fees are generally a more focused form of revenue. Everybody could pay for public parks, or those that actual went to a park could pay a fee.
When is the time to raise taxes? When I stop reading about the USDA paying 200k for a consultant to learn to chant ridiculous phrases, when I am not sending the US court of Appeals to boondoggles in Hawaii, or VA trips to resorts in Florida. Lets start there.
Since the repubs like vouchers so much how about a meal voucher of 10 bucks for all business meals. and no deductions for entertainment. and a $50 voucher for hotels to limit the amount of the deductions off profits. how about charging income tax on perks for executives. I hear Cheney had a private chef and a treadmill that flew around with him on the company jet. the company gets the deduction and the exec gets the taxed at the normal rate
I think they have it all bassackwards, find the loopholes to close first and then give the tax cut to make it really revenue neutral if that's what they want. this pig in the poke stuff don't cut it. Ban all lobbyists with a sequester of the politicians and watch the fur fly on cspan so we can see who we want to fire and make them work Monday thru Friday like everyone else at least 60 hours a week for their 6 figure salaries. Have it so they can't collect their pensions and government benefits till 66 like everybody else. they can fund raise and campaign on their own time and on their own dime. and have their raises and perks come from a national referendum with the presidential election these guys break their own arms patting themselves on the back for doing nothing
Obamacare will offer a subsidy for some people buying private insurance through an Exchange.
Please explain to me how this is so different from the vouchers that President Obama speaks against?
Obama isn't asking senior or anyone else to pay an extra $500 a month or $6000 a year for their Medicare. Obama is not asking a disabled or bed ridden senior with Alzheimer's to go out with a voucher to find coverage with a private insurance company.
Akgirl you are being ridiculous. Romney is not either. You can stay on standard Medicare. And your estimates are from the garbage Obama ads.
The President gave it his best shot and he Failed. Time to put someone else in the White House that can get Americans working. Every 4 years vote them all out. Politicians should not have job security. Their benefits are a lot better than ours. And now the Government is using part time jobs to count as full time jobs. The President has made a deal with contractors who have to lay off thousands of workers.
If the contractors wait until after the election to lay off thousands of workers the President will take care of the contractors legal expenses for workers who sue them. If the President is re-elected we might as well flush the toilet and go down the drain with him.
Sorry but I am not going FORWARD .......Off A Cliff. Vote all these numbnutz out.
I am in favor of eliminating all tax cuts and deductions, they should all be re-debated. Along with this complete restructuring of the tax code and as to not overburden taxpayers, I would lower tax rates so that the revenue stream remains the same. I feel this will accomplish a few things: make people more responsible for their own economic choices, stop shifting the tax burden of the choice of some on to others who do not make that choice, and allow for a simpler system that will make tax evasion and fraud more difficult.
I agree....The only one that I would like to keep is the deduction for giving to charity. I would rather the money go to help people that go to help the government.
Did you know that at one time a Corporation had to improve the quality of life and standard of living of it's workers as well as the local community, or it's Corporate Charter would not be renewed by the State it operated in?
Or , that any criminal or fraudulent activity by the Corporation or its representatives could lead to the Corporation being dissolved and all assets auctioned off by the State to benefit employees, the community, and the State?
That was law! I don't know how the hell they got so damn powerful, but read a short description of how our Forefathers had originally tried to protect us from Corporate Fascism:
'The Hidden History of Corporations in the United States'
It will make you spit!
hey Romney would you stop the Faith base tax Bush made..Churches need to pay there own way..not from the government..that's a waist of tax people money
I wonder if it is too late for me to run. I can promise more than Romney, and like him I wouldn't have to tell how I could accomplish them. With Romney not telling how he plans to do anything, how can Obama has to debate invisible promises--invisible windmills. For example--which deductions will Romney eliminate to make his 25% tax reduction? Capital gains--no way! Mortgage deduction--maybe. Religious contributions--no way, it would have cost him $420,000 last year, since he was in the 14% bracket and he gave 3 million to church and charities. Home office--maybe because he doesn't have one. Medical deductions--why not? If he will tell us how, we might have a meaningful debate.
Check out Book 10 on Justice from page 108 at andgulliverreturns.info for some interesting info on church and charity deductions--so much for separation of church and state.