If his performance in Wednesday night's debate was the best thing that could have happened to Mitt Romney, today's jobs numbers, which showed the unemployment rate dropping below 8 percent for the first time in 43 months, are probably the worst.
31 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 83 previous comments
- I see what you are getting at and respect your interpretation but I disagree with your analysis that it is simple math. You have said more about his plan than he has. Word going around is that there aren't enough loopholes to overcome lowering taxing across the board like he says he would. I think we deserve to see some details before we make our minds up. What are you planning to close, how much revenue will this generate. I want some numbers! I am not being unreasonable.
Edit: And by the way, how will increasing corporate taxes generate higher payrolls... This is definitely not simple math to me.Oct 5, 2012
- Looking at Romney's numbers, I applied them to my in-laws, both retired and in their 80s (I do their taxes for them). They have about $40K/yr income (SS & some annuity investments). Currently for 2012, they would get a standard deduction of 11,900, plus 2,300 for being over age 65. Their 2 personal exemptions would be 7,600. So, their total deductions would be 21,800, and their tax liability would be 1,860 (if Romney considers them in his 47%, he missed the boat, they do pay taxes). Under Romney's plan, their total deductions are capped at $17K, so they lose $4,800 in deductions, which drives their taxable income up by the same amount from 18,200 to 23,000, and their tax liability goes up to 2,064, an increase
of $204. Calculations from 2012 tax table, with Romneys rate adjustment:
17,400 X 8% (dropped from 10%) = 1,392
5,600 X 12% (dropped from 15%) = 672
Total Tax Liability = 2,064
So Romney happily tells us in the debate, with his plastic TV preacher smile, that his tax plan won't raise taxes on the Middle Class, but rather will reduce them. Well, this doesn't seem to be the case for my in-laws, now does it? Now an increase of $204 isn't a backbreaking amount, but when compared to the whopping big savings many wealthy will get, something doesn't add up. It seems as if Romney doesn't really think his plans through, simply doesn't understand the numbers, or is just throwing stuff out to make it to like he knows what he is talking about, but then again, this is the Romney we all know and love.
Also, he proposes dropping the top rates for the wealthiest by 10 percentage points (35% to 25%), but dropping the Middle Class rate by only 5 percentage points (25% to 20%). Who gets the better deal, especially when you consider that the top rate applies to a higher level of income, resulting in a much greater dollar savings AND because we have a graduated system, the wealthy will have part of their income getting the Middle Class savings as well as their own. Spin it anyway you like, but it's pretty obvious whose butts Romney is kissing.Oct 5, 2012
- good write up, he did not bother to point out in his sales pitch that the percentage of loss of deductions vs gross income would be much greater then the advantage of a lower tax rate.....Oct 5, 2012
- Everything that I have said was taken straight from his website and this past debate. Romney has said more than I have stated, and so I am confused as to why you think he has not.
There are two loopholes, which by themselves would generate more revenue than any tax increase on the wealthy could ever generate. The first is the dividend loophole that currently is set at 15%, which is why Mr. Romney and those in his same category, are able to pay such low taxes. The other loophole has to deal with what percentage of a deduction one can take, in relation to ones income. Currently the loophole is set to give people the ability to claim more in deductions than what someone would owe in taxes, in essence halving the amount of taxes one would owe. Those two loopholes being closed would send a massive amount of revenue into the Government's coffers. BUT!! It comes at a steep price because the loopholes would be lifted off of everyone and it would effect the investment income of everyone, creating less disposable income and sending the markets into a tizzy. And this would create problems for businesses as they are currently fixed on a market-driven economy. They would have to go back and restructure themselves to fit that kind of economic model and it would create a lot of chaos for a few years, resulting in more economic uncertainty and potential layoffs until the company can restructure itself.
Romney does not plan on increasing corporate taxes. I surmise that he intends (based on the Ryan budget plan) to almost cut them in half. This would create a better balance in trade for the US, and could easily restore the entire manufacturing sector. Which is a huge bonus for the US, but not so much for the US's trading partners.
Obama cannot give you hard numbers, so it is doubtful that Romney could, either, outside of normal talking points that are fed to them by advisors. The only person of the 4 (Pres/VP Candidates) that could, is Paul Ryan...as he is fluent in the financials of the governments spending and revenues.
All I have to do is look at the more balanced and sensible approach offered by Romney, to know that the simple math of it (and yes it is simple on the surface of it), is that a multi-pronged approach to reducing the deficit, increasing revenue, and getting people back to work is better for the economy and more sustainable in the short and long term, than to simply raise taxes on a group of people who have lived their lives in search of finding every loophole imaginable to pay the least amount of money. The government is not nearly as good at economics as those in business are. Just look at the stock market vs. the federal governments bottom line and you will see that the market has doubled in growth, while the government has doubled in deficit.
It's simply time for a new perspective.Oct 5, 2012
- Your numbers are incomplete, because you don't know which loopholes would be able to be taken advantage from. While in theory your in-laws would pay more, if their income is in dividends and the loophole for that remains open to them, then their income would not be effected. It's too hard to make carte-blanche statements about the potential of someone's economic system when it hasn't been expounded upon. This is always the difficulty of a presidential race when there is an incumbent and a challenger. It was much easier when Obama ran, because there was no incumbent. McCain was not a business person, was part of the old-crony network of Congress and was easy pickings for a 1st term (half-term) Senator. Obama ran on promises for hope and change, no real leadership experience, and very little specifics in his plans that were more vague than what Mr. Romney has proposed. The Ryan Budget spells out quite clearly what Mr. Romney's proposal starts with. But that has yet to be examined for its merits because Democrats are using Ryan's 2011 budget numbers and not the updated 2012 numbers. That was the one of the biggest reasons for bringing Ryan on, in the first place. Because he already had a concrete economic/budget model in place from which to work with.Oct 5, 2012
- +Eric Kite Nice one.Oct 6, 2012