Romney's tax plan Bush's tax plan on steroids - International Business Times

[Bill USA]

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/382237/20120909/romney-ryan-taxes-budget-deficit-obama-cbo.htm

You say poring over the U.S. tax code -- including Mitt Romney's proposed tax policy -- doesn't exactly sound like an exciting weekend for you and your significant other? Well, fear not: We've done the work for you.

The Romney-Ryan tax plan, in a nutshell? It cut taxes on the uber-rich, raises taxes on middle-income and lower-income Americans and cuts federal programs in the U.S.'s modest social safety net.

Simply put, the Romney tax plan is the Bush tax plan on steroids. Romney wants to cut income tax rates by 20 percent, and running mate Paul Ryan wants a top tax rate of 10 percent for married couples filing jointly on their first $100,000, and a 25 percent income tax rate for income higher than $100,000 -- two ideas that would primarily benefit upper-income adults and the uber-rich.

Romney's plan would also eliminate the estate tax. Ryan -- perhaps trying to outdo his running mate and help Romney's bottom line at the same time -- would eliminate the capital gains and dividends taxes, and make a selected amount of other capital income tax-free! Consider this: Under Ryan's plan, Romney's ridiculously low 13.9 percent 2010 federal income tax rate would have been lowered to about zip! Zilch. Nada. That's about $21 million in income for Romney in 2010, and almost no federal taxes paid! Meanwhile, middle-class and working-class Americans would be taxed at double-digit income tax rates. Way to go, Ryan! Your plan takes the already problematic U.S. tax code and makes it even more regressive -- redistributing even more income and wealth from the poor and middle-class to the rich -- in a reverse-Robin Hood scheme.
<more>

[freshwest]

1. Biden needs to hammer Ayn Rand's Superman on this one thing. It's a deal breaker.

Ryan cuts millions to the poor, elderly, disabled and children and slams the middle class, and then adds $5 TRILLION to the deficit.

You know, that deficit for which he's willing to destroy those people to save the government's credit rating and solvency.

The same credit rating and solvency he got lowered as he tried to extort the government up to get anti-women legislation.

Oh, that deficit.

Oh, that solvency.

Oh, quit Lyin', Ryan.

[They_Live]

2. it is like a flaming bag of poo

on 99.7% of the nation's doorsteps.

[bmurraycpa]

3. Don't comment on the tax code unless you've studied it! (A little anyway?)

So many things, where to begin... (I'm typing fast - please forgive my typos!)

Our tax code is the most progressive tax code in the industrialized world. The lower half of income earners pay less than 3% of all federal income tax collected, and many of them get more back than they paid. The top 25% of earners pay 86% of all taxes collected. During GWB's tenure that percentage went up, not down. Let me say that again so you get it: during George Bush's presidency, the share of total income taxes paid by highest income earners increased. He gave them tax cuts, but he gave lower income tax payers a larger percentage reduction, which caused the total burden to move up the income scale. You don't have to believe me - the IRS publishes the data for all to see (if they care to).

And, because of the tax cuts, federal revenues collected hit record levels during the Bush Admin. Ever heard of the Laffer Curve? The last three tax rate reductions (Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush) have all been followed by new highs in federal revenue collection.

Don't complain about tax rate cuts causing deficits, when they are followed by increases in federal tax revenue collections. What do you care about, punishing achievers or collecting federal revenue? If it's federal revenue, then you should support rate reductions - they work.

I don't support everything in the Romney/Ryan plan myself. I'd rather see a total elimination of corporate income taxes, and have all income taxed at the individual level. Then we could do away with different classes of income taxed at different rates. Unfortunately, that is less politically popular that the R/R plan. Ultimately, the income you claim was never taxed, has already been taxed at the corporate level by near 35%. The federal government double taxes corporate earnings right now at the pace of 50% in most cases: 35% at the corporate level, then another 15% when those same earnings get passed out to the shareholders. You can add state income taxes - corporate and individual - on top of that!

Your notion that the rich aren't paying their share is nonsense. They are the only ones who really pay. I think you know the truth, but class envy sells better.

[Lucy Goosey]

4. The Laffer curve? Really?

The idea proposed by the Laffer curve has not really been supported by the facts. It's been widely refuted by economists from across the political spectrum.

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/economists-fail-republicans-laffer-curve

http://business.time.com/2012/08/09/arthur-laffers-anti-stimulus-curve-ball-is-a-foul/

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/07/14/a-laughable-laffer-curve-from/

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/09/14/the-laffer-curve-debunked-part-one/

http://middleclasspoliticaleconomist.blogspot.ca/2012/04/laffer-curve-refuted.html

Welcome to DU.

[Bill USA]

6. "Our tax code is the most progressive tax code in the industrialized world"?

interesting statement. can you provide a link/s to back it up?

The Bush tax cuts did not increase tax revenues as a percent of GDP- the only meaningful way to compare them(when GDP increases it increases tax revenues all other things - like tax rates - being equal).

Here's the historical data on tax revenues as a percent of GDP from the Office of Management and Budget


[font color="white"]..........[/font] Revenues
Cal Yr [font color="white"].[/font] % of GDP
2000 ..... 20.6
2001 .... 19.5
2002 .... 17.6
2003 .... 16.2
2004 .... 16.1
2005 .... 17.3
2006 .... 18.2
2007 .... 18.5
2008 .... 17.5
2009 ..... 14.9


Bush admin. figures in bold



Are the Bush Tax Cuts the Root of Our Fiscal Problem? - Bruce Bartlett
(emphases my own)

If one allocates the interest cost proportionally, the Bush tax cuts were responsible for increasing the debt by $3.2 trillion — 27 percent of the fiscal deterioration since 2001.

[font size="+1"]These facts notwithstanding, it has become a Republican talking point that the Bush tax cuts did not, in fact, reduce revenue at all — something the Bush administration itself never asserted.[/font]

Last year, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader, said: “There’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy.”

~~
~~

[font size="+1"]It is hard to know where these totally erroneous ideas come from. Federal revenue fell in 2001 from 2000, again in 2002 from 2001 and again in 2003 from 2002. Revenue did not get back to its 2000 level until 2005. More important, revenue as a share of G.D.P. was lower every year of the Bush presidency than it was in 2000.[/font]
<more>

[Bill USA]

7. U.S. tax system the most regressive in the developed world

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002603686