• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Can Mitt's Tax Increases Be Prevented If He Is Elected?

Can we stop Mitt's tax increases if he is elected?

  • Sure, we can find a way... Somehow.

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • Nope, no way, no how. He wins, he makes the rules, and the Republicans control the House.

    Votes: 4 44.4%
  • Increasing the amount people pay to the Government is not tax increases!

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • I disagree with the premise of the poll, and/or who is Mitt Romney?

    Votes: 2 22.2%

  • Total voters
    9

HoverBoarder

Graduate Poster
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
1,667
If I had to put my own money on the line right now, I would say that Mitt Romney will win the election. Not that I want that to be the case, but that is the grim reality that I believe we are now facing.

So given that Romney has promised to add 7 trillion in new spending and pay for it by getting rid of tax breaks on mostly high and middle income Americans, so that they would pay more money to the government (but don't call it a tax increase!). He is outright unapologetically lying about part of his plan if not all of it.


Lying is something that Romney is pretty used to, and there is a pretty hilarious Onion article talking about it here. However as much as it bothers those people who spend the time to fact check, honesty is often not a winning tactic as shown by the first debates. Plus, whether Romney is lying about whatever he wants to or not is probably not going to matter in three weeks, and those of us who are bothered by it will just have to deal with it.


If Romney gets in office, we're going to have to live with the repercussions, and it is probably better to get ourselves ready now so we can mitigate the damage. So what can we do if anything about his tax increases?

Granted we will probably have to have some kind of tax increases, and Obama has been honest about that all along by proposing to have a modest tax increase on the top earners, which will probably cost him the election. However, even if Romney cuts tax breaks, the increase in tax revenue from that would come nowhere near paying for Romney's new spending, much less the deficit we are already in.

Bloomberg Businessweek: Repealing Deductions Pays for 4% Tax Cuts, Study Says

Even if you get rid of some of the tax deductions on the table like household deductions, education deductions, and more, it would represent an extremely small portion of the new spending. Not to mention how that increase in tax spending for largely middle income Americans would impact jobs and hiring.

So where else will Mitt get the rest of the money? He has made it clear that he will be steadfast in not touching any of the tax breaks for the billion dollar profit oil companies.

Can we stop the kind of tax increases and increased spending that Mitt has outlined, or if he is elected, do we not stand a chance?




:talk013:
 
He wants to decrease taxes... At least that's all he's ever said about the subject.
 
So then you're making the assumption that he wants to increase taxes based on nothing more than "he's lying." I can't say it's implausible, but how do you make a strategy to prevent something like that?
 
The usually-accurate "538" Blog still shows a strong advantage to Obama... It'll be interesting to see how this next debate goes.
Romney's big "bounce" from his debate performance could evaporate as swiftly as it rose.
 
So then you're making the assumption that he wants to increase taxes based on nothing more than "he's lying." I can't say it's implausible, but how do you make a strategy to prevent something like that?

That's the main problem I have with the perpetually reoccurring train wreck that is the Republican party. They are 90% rhetoric, and 10% reality, and when the two meet, it is not pretty.

There is always talk of a "fair tax" or a "9-9-9" plan that is nowhere near fair when you actually look at it. An inevitably awaiting disaster that is propped up by easy to understand buzz words.

Obama definitely had his own rhetoric, but he also got a lot of positive work done. Something that is generally only appreciated by economists and the people whose jobs he saved.


You really don't have to make any assumptions to know that whatever way Mitt Romney would flip flop to, the facts show that it would be incredibly bad for our economy and America. Something that is all too familiar as Republicans have time and time again addressed each disaster in their plans with a band aid of more and more rhetoric.

Ultimately you can just put out more and more data on the damage that Mitt Romney's plans would do, and hope that Americans will pay more attention to that than the rhetoric from the other side, but I have my doubts as to whether or not facts would win the day.

That's why I chose B on the poll.
 
The usually-accurate "538" Blog still shows a strong advantage to Obama... It'll be interesting to see how this next debate goes.
Romney's big "bounce" from his debate performance could evaporate as swiftly as it rose.

A lot of analysts have said that "so goes Ohio, so goes the Nation." I have high doubts that this election will be decided by popular vote. It's all about the electoral college, again.
 
The usually-accurate "538" Blog still shows a strong advantage to Obama... It'll be interesting to see how this next debate goes.
Romney's big "bounce" from his debate performance could evaporate as swiftly as it rose.

Just checked out the 538 blog. They do give Obama a 63.9% chance of winning today (Oct 14th), but it is down 17.3% since last week.

That's still pretty close.
 
Speaking of fairness, will these supposed Romney tax increases mean that all earners will begin contributing to society in the form of federal income tax? Or will "fair" continue to mean that the successful among us fund the building of roads and bridges while the rabble yells "GIMME!"?

I chose Option E, which is just a clip of Mitt going "MWUAHAHAHA!!!" while lighting cigars with $100 bills. A monocle is also involved.
 
Speaking of fairness, will these supposed Romney tax increases mean that all earners will begin contributing to society in the form of federal income tax? Or will "fair" continue to mean that the successful among us fund the building of roads and bridges while the rabble yells "GIMME!"?

Most roads and bridges are paid for with state and local taxes, and generally the "most successful among us" pay a smaller share of their income in state and local taxes than the rest of us. In 2011, the bottom 20 percent paid over 12 percent of their income in state and local taxes while the top 1 percent paid around 8 percent.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505#_ftnref22
 
Last edited:
Speaking of fairness, will these supposed Romney tax increases mean that all earners will begin contributing to society in the form of federal income tax? Or will "fair" continue to mean that the successful among us fund the building of roads and bridges while the rabble yells "GIMME!"?

I chose Option E, which is just a clip of Mitt going "MWUAHAHAHA!!!" while lighting cigars with $100 bills. A monocle is also involved.

I love how people with 2-3 jobs, and people in the military are portrayed as a groups whose only message is "GIMME."

Most definitely those who are living on trust funds with tax havens in the Bermuda islands are the ones with the short end of the stick.

I do like your idea for an option E though. Especially if it included Donald Trump and Jamie Dimon at a "get out of taxes free" party. Maybe they could even have some of the poor middle class there serving drinks to pay off some of the tax increases that Mitt has proposed. Now that's fair.
 
All revenue bills must come through the House first.
The Prez can't change revenue by fiat.
With a Reptilican House, and that god-awful pledge by many members, who knows what would occur... were Mitt to get elected....shudder!!!!!!!!!!
 
He'll either bankrupt the USA or raise taxes on the "takers." Either way, it's going to be horrible.
 
You mean tax decrease, don't you? Mitt's proposing an across the board 20% cut in tax rates.

If I had to put my own money on the line right now, I would say that Mitt Romney will win the election. Not that I want that to be the case, but that is the grim reality that I believe we are now facing.

The poll based electoral vote maps don't support that conclusion. It's still an uphill battle for Mitt. It's closer than it was (and there is no reason to think the trend in Romney's favor will continue), but Romney still needs more of the toss-ups than Obama does.

Anyway, your question certainly isn't the whole story about whether or not it matters who wins the election. The president will likely have 2 and maybe 3 Supreme Court nominations to make. And the fact that Mitt thinks a 20% tax cut is a good idea matters quite a bit, whether or not it's something he could do. (Similarly, his ever-shifting position on abortion matters to many even though not even Congress can criminalize abortion.)
 
Yeah, that's why I posted the article from Bloomberg Businessweek detailing how there is no way in hell that he can be telling the truth on that.

But he really is proposing a tax cut. It's part of his official platform statement. That his claims that it won't add to the deficit don't make sense doesn't change the fact that he's proposing a tax cut.

And that none of it would ever be realized also doesn't change the fact that he's actually proposing a tax cut. From his official website:

"Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates [for individual income tax]"
 
Yeah, that's why I posted the article from Bloomberg Businessweek detailing how there is no way in hell that he can be telling the truth on that.

For more, see the definition here:

The Definition of Lying and Deception

From the article that details that there is no way in hell...

“There are a significant number of other identified individual income tax expenditures or other possible base- broadening policies that I did not include in this experiment,” Barthold wrote.
The Bowles-Simpson plan from 2010 estimated that a top rate of 23 percent was achievable if all tax breaks were eliminated.
Still, there are some important distinctions between Romney’s approach and the JCT analysis that make it difficult to compare the 4 percent finding in the study with Romney’s pledge of a 20 percent tax cut.
 
But he really is proposing a tax cut. It's part of his official platform statement. That his claims that it won't add to the deficit don't make sense doesn't change the fact that he's proposing a tax cut.

And that none of it would ever be realized also doesn't change the fact that he's actually proposing a tax cut. From his official website:

"Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates [for individual income tax]"

If someone gives you money, than takes more than they gave you away...

Is that still a tax cut?
 
He's showing the youth how to prepare for the future.

669081325.jpg
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom