Debate #1... GO!Follow

I understand the context of the words I used. They were insulting you and questioning everyone else for indulging you. It is you who can't grasp the context. Not that I expect you to, even if this is the 2nd time they've been spelled out for you.

When applied as an absolute, yes. But then all economic calculations break down when used at the wrong time. I'm assuming you also realize how wrong statements like "a dollar of food stamps creates a buck 80 in economic growth". Same deal.

However, in the situation we're in right now, the approach is absolutely sound. Let me repeat what I said earlier. Our revenues dropped several hundred billion dollars between 2007 and 2011. Yet, during that time, we did not change our tax rates. The loss of revenue occurred because of decreased economic activity and lower employment. At the federal level, lower profits means less taxes and fewer workers means less taxes. If you can reverse that, then the revenue will come back. That's not voodoo economics at all. It's quite consistent and documented economic behavior. It's what happens every time you have a recession and then the economy bounces back.

The problem is that we didn't bounce back. Now we can disagree over why that happened, or what the correct solution is, but if Romney is correct that his policies will allow that bounce we've been waiting for to finally happen, then he's absolutely right that this will allow for deficit reduction without having to raise taxes. If you want to argue that his policies wont create that bounce, that's fine. But simply declaring that if we can get that increased economic activity and employment it wont help our deficit issues at all is simply 100% wrong.

I was asked how Romney thought he could do this. I've answered the question. Now, if you want to argue that there's some magical math that says that if we shift 10 million people from the unemployment roles (which consumes tax revenue) to employment (where they'll be paying taxes), that this will not help our deficit, then by all means, argue away. But I don't think you can do more than just wave your hands and insist that it wont work. That's not a good enough response though.

Can someone who understands almish translate this for me because I'm so fucking lost on what his point is supposed to be.

You do realize that Alma is pretty much this forums version of Cleverbot. Way to allow yourself to get trolled again.

How the **** does someone with such an obvious bias agains anything even vaguely scientific get to be part of a science and technology committee?

Well, you don't even understand your own points, I'm not sure how you expect to understand others.

To break it down, you were wrong on the original claim of me and instead of admitting it, you're tried to point out that you were ridiculing me. However, your ridicule does not take away from the fact that you were still wrong.

The less you know, the more of an expert you are in any field. You not knowing that means you should know that better than anyone here.

It really is scary that loons like that get into higher office. I know how they do it but still.

So I was reading about Romney's plan to reduce deductions and cap them in order to increase revenue to the government. Which is a decent idea as far as income generation is concerned, and it will definitely help the US money bleeding issue. There is a thing though about it that he is not mentioning, or at least being very misleading about.

His plan targets everyone, all taxable Americans, Rich and Poor, and all those in between. According to the Romney camp there is potentially 1.1 Trillion at stake and this would most certainly put a dent into the deficit, however again Romney has given up math for talking points.

There are approximately 230 Million people in the US who are taxable, this equates to about 4700 dollars of increased taxation per taxable citizen. Granted some will be exempt (in the sense they don't have deductions to claim) and others hit harder depending on their sources of equity. (ie. those who own multiple properties will be hit the deduction cap faster and thus pay more taxes in the end than say the guy who is renting, or own just one home.)

A deduction cap is essentially the same as increasing the taxation of the people. Something that Romney adamantly said he would not do several times over the course of the campaign and debates (including the GOP debates). Yet his plan directly increases the taxation of Americans by limiting their deduction those being hardest hit...the middle class, and the wealthiest of Americans. The two categories of people he explicitly said would see no increase to their personal taxes.

Now Obama has a similar plan, he would like to cap deductions at 28% of equity. However the key difference he only plans to impose these caps on the folks earning over 250K/yr. Leaving the vast majority of Americans without this phantom tax increase., particularly middle class Americans.

What is it with this guy and basic math, and glossing over details?

Edited, Oct 6th 2012 11:54am by rdmcandie

So I was reading about Romney's plan to reduce deductions and cap them in order to increase revenue to the government. Which is a decent idea as far as income generation is concerned,

Nope, it's not a decent idea. It's make believe. There is literally zero chance of an itemized deduction cap, ever.

Ignoring Smash's opinion about whether such a thing *will* be done (cause Obama's plan has the same problems, right?).



IIRC, he was talking about capping it at either $17k or $25k (or something in that range). That's not going to affect most Americans at all, and certainly not the "Poor".



Yeah. Which might be a reasonable (but still flawed) assessment of the tax component of Obamacare, which is essentially a flat tax that directly affects just those above the poverty line, but who don't have jobs that provide health care as a benefit. So it hits the working class and lower middle class folks and if you think it'll actually just be $2500/person/year, I've got a bridge to sell you. You can't just calculate the total amount "saved" and divide by the entire tax base.



Only if we're using a very broad definition of "taxation" (which isn't the word Romney uses). Romney makes a specific distinction between "raising taxes" and "lowering deductions". And while you can argue that both result in people paying more total taxes, he's not being misleading when he uses the terms he's using. Unlike say calling a tax credit a tax cut, for example.



Again, I'm certain he did not use such a vague word as "taxation" in this context. It's meaningless and interesting that you chose it.



It puts a cap on deductions. It's a tax idea. And one which resonates with many people. You're getting caught up in details though. Remember that no "plans" talked about during a presidential campaign end out being exactly implemented as stated during the campaign itself. There is this whole congress thing that kinda gets in the way. It's about the concept and approach, not the details. And the idea of putting some kind of cap on deductions is one which people tend to like more than just having tax rates increased. Because when you increase the tax rates, that affects everyone in a given bracket. When you cap deductions it *only* affects those taking large amounts of deductions. If the cap is a hard number, then only people who earn enough money and had enough money to use in various ways (to earn the deductions in the first place) are affected.

That has issues all by itself, and could be (would be) a mess to implement since you'd somewhat have to have exceptions, but as a concept it's a valid one and we're to judge such things by the same measuring stick, his math works just as well (better really) than Obama's. And in a contest between two candidates, that's all that really matters.



I'm assuming you meant "earnings" and not "equity"? Yeah. Yet another Obama "I'm just taxing people who make over $250k/year" bit. This has all the same problems that Romney's plan does, but doesn't generate any real significant revenue increase because it does avoid taxing the meatiest part of the tax base. I mean, I know that the whole "middle class versus rich" is a new theme that Obama is trying out, but the reality is that there's an absolutely massive difference between someone making say $60k/year and someone making $249k/year, but both are considered "middle class". To pretend that somehow someone's fortunes stay the same until they magically cross the $250k/year income barrier is absolutely absurd.

Don't get me wrong, I'm one of those in that range who would most benefit from Obama's plan. I earn enough money to be very comfortable but am still well below where he's decided to set his magical cutoff for his tax plan. But I also understand that I earn that nice comfortable income *because* there are rich people and big businesses who are able to retain sufficient money after tax to employ me (small businesses don't tend to pay their employees 6 figure salaries, do they?). It is vastly more in my long term interest for folks in that range to take a minor hit spread across a large number of people, than to focus it all on the relatively small tax base that Obama is going after. Because those brackets (and businesses) will be hit *hard*. And it'll directly affect how many people they employ and how much they can pay those people.

You don't affect the size of the middle class if you cap their deductions (or even raise their taxes). You do shrink the middle class if you lump the same total dollar of revenue increase in the form of higher taxes (or lower deductions) targeted entirely on "the rich". And the kind of deduction cap that Romney is talking about would not hurt those most in need of deductions, while preventing those who don't really need them from taking advantage of the tax system.


Now, ideally, we go in and completely re-do the tax code, but that's an even harder thing to accomplish. I suspect this deduction cap idea is just an alternative easier step.



He didn't gloss over details. You've invented details. I also find it interesting that you ignore the same flaws in Obama's plan, while highlighting them in Romney's. Both have the same problems. Romney at least has the benefit of spreading the impact more and actually reducing the deficit more. So if we're going to compare two early stage plans, his is absolutely better.

Edited, Oct 9th 2012 6:22pm by gbaji