where is this debunking supposedly to be found?
Link to the debunking?
I’ve been wanting it to be debunked, but it’s true. IT’s not really true that Romney wants to raise taxes on middle class families, It’s just true that his tax plan would have to do that in order for the numbers to add up. He’s going to have to change it if he wins.
I sometimes wonder if we’re reading the same threads, Rand…
It’s simple math, and like adaher says something will have to give. My guess is he’d go like Bush did and do the cuts and give up the revenue-neutrality.
I’d like to think Romney’s smarter than that. Revenues are at Eisenhower-era levels. I’m not sure how you do tax cuts from here.
I think the more prudent course is just to repeat the Reagan-era tax reform. You get what you can, try to streamline the system and lower rates. Some middle class families will be taxed that weren’t before, but most will see a slight cut or no change.
And this time, let’s not let future politicians recomplicate the system. Once we have two or three brackets, it needs to be locked in stone somehow. The brackets can be raised or lowered, but there should never be more than three.
You can’t do your last part without a constitutional amendment, as far as I can tell. Tax policy is just legislation.
And personally I’d go the other way - I think we need more brackets, not fewer. A person making $250k is way, way different in terms of marginal utility than a person making $20 million yet the federal tax code treats them identically. And it’s not like looking up your tax in the table is the hard part - hell, computers make it instant. The complication is in deductions, credits, and the different treatment of different types of income.
Which post number thoroughly debunks it?
Actually, since Congress can make its own rules, they could make a rule that a 2/3rds vote is required to add brackets. It could be repealed at the beginning of a session by simple majority vote, but in practice supermajority rules aren’t repealed very often.
That’s Matt Yglesias’ argument.
Everything you say is true, but more brackets are introduced generally so that we can have really high marginal rates. Given that even the richest people rarely pay over 25-30%, there’s just no point. Congressmen will protect their own wealth if no one else’s, so we’ve never actually had a tax system where the high rates collected revenue. Just call the top rate 25% and be done with it, it’s what most rich people will pay anyway.
That’s not quite how I interpret Keynesianism, but my understanding is rudimentary at best.
There’s a cause-and-effect question here. Will the economy collapse because of government spending, or are some people pushing spending and taxation to force a collapse so that they can remake the government into the limited role they think is appropriate for it?
That’s a very interesting question, but I think it’s outside the scope of this thread, and not the most productive approach to solving our current problems. We have debated the role of government. Every new area of spending and responsibility the government has taken on in the last 99 years, it did so through the democratic process. A majority of people elected politicians to represent them, and a majority of them decided what the government should do. That process continues, and the government will expand and shrink as the people wish. I don’t think it’s necessary or realistic to abandon the last 99 years in one fell swoop.
So, given the level of government as it now exists, let’s take a look at what it really costs and try to balance what we want with what we can reasonably pay for. But it seems some people want to describe things as a crisis as an excuse to blow the whole thing up and start all over again.
I don’t think one session of Congress can carve something in stone that the next can’t re-carve in another stone.
And the number of brackets really has nothing to do with simplifying taxes. The hard part of doing taxes is figuring out your income. Once you have that number, look it up in the tables, and you’re done. How those tables are calculated can be as complicated as we like. We could have a dozen brackets and it wouldn’t be any harder than it is now.
Is having a dozen brackets really that much more complicated than having three? So they have to do a little bit more arithmetic, big deal. If you want to simplify the tax code, try tacking the breathtaking number of deductions and credits that specific industries have lobbied for. The complexity is not from having to do some math, it’s in finding and understanding all the paragraphs in the tax code that might apply to one’s situation.
The high rates force complication into the system by causing Congressmen to rush to protect the incomes of themselves and their contributors.
The debunking has been debunked! It was rebunked. It is totally bunk now.
“High” is relative, though. An industry that currently pays an average of 10% (totaling, say, $5 billion from their collective pockets) won’t have a problem paying lobbyists and making contributions totaling $100 million to get that rate down to 8%.
Now I’m curious what industry, if any, is being taxed out of existence, forcing political contribution out of self-defense.
The claimed debunking was actually D.O.A. *
*Of course- debunked on arrival.
I just wonder how one would go about debunking some speculative assertions that a plan that has few details will ‘raise taxes on 95% of Americans’. I mean, on the surface of it, it’s a fairly ridiculous claim, since a large percentage (more than 5%) of Americans don’t currently pay Federal income tax (which is presumably what Romney would be raising), but as we don’t know the details (still) of the rather nebulous plan, it COULD be true. It COULD be that Romney plans to fund it by selling the dissected parts from the elderly, or selling poor children to the cook pots of the Orient…or, maybe mutant space rabbits have been contacted and have agreed to pay us in golden pellets for every minority we ship up to them for their unspeakable experiments…
Or, seemingly more likely, Romney himself (or the staffer that came up with this) hasn’t actually worked out the little details, and never really intends too, since it’s basically just a political promise that will be broken once he’s in office. My own Occam’s Razor is twitching towards this as the most likely explanation, which I’m sure the speculative folks in the article linked in the OP knew, but, this being politics, decided to spin to make this something about nothing. And get the faithful all worked up, of course. Mission Accomplished™…here’s a sock for your flight suit, and have a nice day!
You heard it here first, folks. Romney’s plan calls for selling the body parts of old people to space rabbits.
See, this is exactly the kind of distortions I’m talking about! They were MUTANT space rabbits, and it was the whole minority being shipped up to them…the body parts of the old people were going to…well, I was intentionally vague about where they were going as I hadn’t worked out that detail as yet…
I don’t know if I disagree or not - is it the claim that Romney is going to extend the tax base such that 95% of all Americans will be paying income tax, instead of 54% or thereabouts? IOW, that only the bottom 5% of taxpayers would be exempt from income tax?
Regards,
Shodan
Indeed. Mainly, their contributors.
I think the phrase “broadening the base” means “more people paying taxes”- so his plan means some people who don’t pay income tax will start.