Romney: No need to detail how I’ll pay for massive tax cuts. Just trust me.

[Lief 🗽]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-no-need-to-detail-how-ill-pay-for-massive-tax-cuts-just-trust-me/2012/06/17/gJQAJi4IjV_blog.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney went on to pledge, as he has in the past, that under his plan, the wealthy would continue to pay the same share of the tax burden as they do now. “I’m not looking to reduce the burden paid by the wealthiest,” he said. In other words, the disproportionally larger tax cut the wealthy would get from the across-the-board cut in rates he’s proposing would be offset by closing deductions and loopholes the rich currently enjoy. But asked twice by Schieffer how exactly he would do this, Romney refused to say, beyond noting that this has been mathematically proven to be possible. And in his first reply above, he confirmed that the details would be worked out with Congress when he is president — which is to say, not during the campaign. [/quote]

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Obviously he'll pay for it with tax hikes on the poor.

[President von Cat]

Whenever Romney avoids cable news shows and personal interviews, he is on top. Then he gets on camera and has appearances like this. Too bad he can't just hide in the bunker for the rest of 2012.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

The lobbies behind the major tax credits(not to mention the public support for them) make meaningful elimination of them damn near impossible. Especially with a very small Republican majority in the senate and a weathervane like Romney as president. The tax cuts will not be paid for.

[Franzl]

Well, tax cuts don't have to be paid for. They get the economy running again. We really need to cut spending where it matters, like food stamps.

[pbrower2a]

The person who says "Trust me!" almost never merits trust.

"You'll love this cream-puff!", says the used-car salesman who gets a special bonus for selling a used car worth only the value of scrap metal.

"I have no further territorial demands", says the sabre-rattling practitioner of diplomatic bullying.

"We will honor political pluralism, civil liberties, and legal niceties", says the extremist demagogue.

"I am God's gift to women", says the 'gentleman' rapist.

"I want to be your Special Friend", says a child molester.

"This is a special opportunity available only to you", says the swindler.

The next two words are usually "Trust me!" 

[WhyteRain]

D.C. still owes us tax payers trillions of dollars due to increased revenues from the Bush Tax Rate Cuts.

Total Individual and Corporate Income Tax receipts, selected years, in billions of dollars:
 
$747 -- FY1995 (last budget of Clinton and Dem Congress)
$828 -- FY1996 (first budget of Clinton and GOP Congress)
*Major tax cut in 1997*
$1,212 -- FY2000 (greatest income tax receipts under "Clinton tax rates")
*Recession, caused mostly by collapse of "tech bubble", begins*
$1,145 -- FY2001 (last budget of "Clinton tax rates")
*2001, GOP defector gives Dems control of Senate; small tax cut enacted*
*Recession continues, exacerbated by 9/11, rising oil prices, corporate financial scandals*
$925 -- FY2003 (receipts fall to lowest level since FY1997; last budget of Bush with Democratic Senate)
*2002, Republicans regain control of Senate*
*2003, major tax cut*
$998 -- FY2004 (first budget of Bush and GOP Congress)
$1,534 -- FY2007 (last budget of Bush and GOP Congress)
*Democrats gain control of both houses of Congress*
$1,450 -- FY2008 (first budget of Bush and Dem Congress)
*Housing bubble bursts, bank bailouts, severe recession begins*
$1,102 -- FY2009 (last budget of Bush and Dem Congress)

The facts show that any sane person who wants to protect and increase federal revenues should (1) vote for a GOP congress and (2) support tax rate cuts.

Taxes increased after the Bush Tax Rate Cuts from $925 billion in FY 2003 to $1,534 billion in FY 2007.  That money should be rebated back to us tax payers or at least tax rates need to keep being cut until they produce an actual reduction in taxes.

Data from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

This is why Tea Partyers are not Republicans.  We want actual taxes cut, not just tax rates. 

[Torie]

Mittens has said elsewhere, that for major policy decisions, it is best to try to get some bipartisan support. On on that one, he is absolutely right. So just how the tax code is revamped to make it economically more efficient, yet politically palatable, would require rather intensive negotiations. The Bowles commission however, achieved a pretty good balance.  A finesse might be to have revenues from cutting more deductions or raising certain rates would kick in automatically if revenues from considerably more robust growth and employment don't kick in as the Pubs hope.

One sticky problem is the home mortgage deduction. It would be tough to get rid of it, with the housing market on its back at the moment. Probably the finesse is to phase it out over time, and make it more means tested than it is now.

[opebo]

He is magical - a god from Mount Olympus.  Seriously, that is how the american people have always viewed the rich. 

[WhyteRain]

Every time I use facts to destroy a cherished myth like "The Bush Tax Cuts Caused a Massive Drop in Tax Revenues!", the thread goes dead. 

It's hard to take seriously a forum where facts end a discussion rather than starting one.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Corporations and large buisnesses do need tax cuts, Warren Buffet and individuals billionaires don't need tax cuts, he even said this.  And EF Hollings said that every single war was paid for by an increase taxes WWI Income Tax was passed, Civil War Lincoln increased taxes. These two wars weren't even paid for.

[WhyteRain]

Corporations and large buisnesses do need tax cuts, Warren Buffet and individuals billionaires don't need tax cuts, he even said this.  And EF Hollings said that every single war was paid for by an increase taxes WWI Income Tax was passed, Civil War Lincoln increased taxes. These two wars weren't even paid for.

The last war to be "paid for" was the War of 1812.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Obviously he'll pay for it with tax hikes on the poor.

The poor have the money to pay taxes?

[Joe Biden 2020]

Of course, why spill the beans now when nobody is paying attention.  Let's wait until September when more people are paying attention.

[/sarcasm]

This is a dumb move by the Romney campaign.  I support Romney and am more than likely going to vote for him, though my vote could go the other direction with the right circumstances, but this is a dumb move.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Every time I use facts to destroy a cherished myth like "The Bush Tax Cuts Caused a Massive Drop in Tax Revenues!", the thread goes dead. 

It's hard to take seriously a forum where facts end a discussion rather than starting one.

Umm..............

[tpfkaw]

Every time I use facts to destroy a cherished myth like "The Bush Tax Cuts Caused a Massive Drop in Tax Revenues!", the thread goes dead.  

It's hard to take seriously a forum where facts end a discussion rather than starting one.

Umm..............

Billions in federal tax receipts:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

2002: $1853
2003: $1782 (first year of Bush tax cuts)
2004: $1880
2005: $2154
2006: $2407
2007: $2568
2008: $2524
2009: $2105
2010: $2163
2011: $2304
2012: $2469

Tax revenues were higher than prior to the tax cuts in every year except for one, and grew every year except 08 and 09 for obvious reasons.  Even the 1-year drop in revenue doesn't necessarily put them on the wrong side of the Laffer curve if one takes a time horizon longer than one year.  In fact, the growth in tax revenues from 2003 to 2007 is much greater than in any 4-year period before it.

[WhyteRain]

My point, illustrated:

Every time I use facts to destroy a cherished myth like "The Bush Tax Cuts Caused a Massive Drop in Tax Revenues!", the thread goes dead. 

It's hard to take seriously a forum where facts end a discussion rather than starting one.

Umm..............

[WhyteRain]

Every time I use facts to destroy a cherished myth like "The Bush Tax Cuts Caused a Massive Drop in Tax Revenues!", the thread goes dead.  

It's hard to take seriously a forum where facts end a discussion rather than starting one.

Umm..............

Billions in federal tax receipts:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

2002: $1853
2003: $1782 (first year of Bush tax cuts)
2004: $1880
2005: $2154
2006: $2407
2007: $2568
2008: $2524
2009: $2105
2010: $2163
2011: $2304
2012: $2469

Tax revenues were higher than prior to the tax cuts in every year except for one, and grew every year except 08 and 09 for obvious reasons.  Even the 1-year drop in revenue doesn't necessarily put them on the wrong side of the Laffer curve if one takes a time horizon longer than one year.  In fact, the growth in tax revenues from 2003 to 2007 is much greater than in any 4-year period before it.

Your figures vary from mine (posted on page 1), and I guessed that yours were probably adjusted for inflation while mine are not.  Upon checking, my guess was confirmed.

By the way, I like your federal budget site.  It's easier to navigate then the one I provided.  Thanks.

[bgwah]

Every time I use facts to destroy a cherished myth like "The Bush Tax Cuts Caused a Massive Drop in Tax Revenues!", the thread goes dead. 

It's hard to take seriously a forum where facts end a discussion rather than starting one.

Umm..............

Billions in federal tax receipts:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

2002: $1853
2003: $1782 (first year of Bush tax cuts)
2004: $1880
2005: $2154
2006: $2407
2007: $2568
2008: $2524
2009: $2105
2010: $2163
2011: $2304
2012: $2469

Tax revenues were higher than prior to the tax cuts in every year except for one, and grew every year except 08 and 09 for obvious reasons.  Even the 1-year drop in revenue doesn't necessarily put them on the wrong side of the Laffer curve if one takes a time horizon longer than one year.  In fact, the growth in tax revenues from 2003 to 2007 is much greater than in any 4-year period before it.

So you can discount 2008 and 2009 because of a bad economy, but not the preceding years because of a good economy? I guess whatever it takes to fit the data into your narrative. I see you also opted for use of nominal values. Was this merely a lack of understanding on your part, or a purposeful deception?

[tpfkaw]

So you can discount 2008 and 2009 because of a bad economy, but not the preceding years because of a good economy?

First of all, I was under the impression that the preceding years were a bad economy, per red avatars, and secondly you're always going to have lower tax receipts during a recession, which was my point.  Also, as I pointed out, the increase in tax revenues prior to the recession was much higher than at any previous point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, those are inflation-adjusted values, as you can see from the top of the webpage I linked to.  Witty rejoinder would go here, but unfortunately I'm muzzled by inconsistent moderation.

[bgwah]

I see separate columns for current and constant dollars. Your numbers are from the current column.

Here are the numbers from the constant column:
1998: 2,040.9
1999: 2,136.4
2000. 2,310.0
2001: 2,215.3
2002: 2,028.6
2003: 1,901.1
2004: 1,949.5
2005: 2,153.6
2006: 2,324.1
2007: 2,414.0
2008: 2,288.1
2009: 1,899.0
2010: 1,927.9
2011: 1,998.7

Furthermore, the very own website you've chosen to cite says the following:

"The Bush tax cuts contributed, along with underlying economic conditions, to a historic decline in federal tax revenue. In 2000 total federal tax revenue was as high in proportion to the U.S. economy as it had ever been. By 2004 federal tax revenue in proportion to the economy had fallen to its lowest level in almost fifty years." link

[tpfkaw]

I see separate columns for current and constant dollars. Your numbers are from the current column.

Here are the numbers from the constant column:
1998: 2,040.9
1999: 2,136.4
2000. 2,310.0
2001: 2,215.3
2002: 2,028.6
2003: 1,901.1
2004: 1,949.5
2005: 2,153.6
2006: 2,324.1
2007: 2,414.0
2008: 2,288.1
2009: 1,899.0
2010: 1,927.9
2011: 1,998.7

Furthermore, the very own website you've chosen to cite says the following:

"The Bush tax cuts contributed, along with underlying economic conditions, to a historic decline in federal tax revenue. In 2000 total federal tax revenue was as high in proportion to the U.S. economy as it had ever been. By 2004 federal tax revenue in proportion to the economy had fallen to its lowest level in almost fifty years." link

Alright, I read that website too quickly, but inflation-adjusted or not all my claims are still accurate, so I'm failing to see your point.  Of course it would be like the Brookings Institution to make ridiculous claims when reality has a bias against liberals - tax revenues as a % of GDP are of course determined by tax rates, if there are higher taxes there will always be a higher amount of tax collection as a percentage of GDP, but that of course does not mean that the absolute amount of tax revenue is as high as it could be.

[WhyteRain]

I see separate columns for current and constant dollars. Your numbers are from the current column.

Here are the numbers from the constant column:
1998: 2,040.9
1999: 2,136.4
2000. 2,310.0
2001: 2,215.3
2002: 2,028.6
2003: 1,901.1
2004: 1,949.5
2005: 2,153.6
2006: 2,324.1
2007: 2,414.0
2008: 2,288.1
2009: 1,899.0
2010: 1,927.9
2011: 1,998.7

Furthermore, the very own website you've chosen to cite says the following:

"The Bush tax cuts contributed, along with underlying economic conditions, to a historic decline in federal tax revenue. In 2000 total federal tax revenue was as high in proportion to the U.S. economy as it had ever been. By 2004 federal tax revenue in proportion to the economy had fallen to its lowest level in almost fifty years." link

Alright, I read that website too quickly, but inflation-adjusted or not all my claims are still accurate, so I'm failing to see your point.  Of course it would be like the Brookings Institution to make ridiculous claims when reality has a bias against liberals - tax revenues as a % of GDP are of course determined by tax rates, if there are higher taxes there will always be a higher amount of tax collection as a percentage of GDP, but that of course does not mean that the absolute amount of tax revenue is as high as it could be.

Just a couple of comments.

First, aren't these "total receipts", not "total tax receipts"?  Federal taxes are, I think, only around 50-60% of "total revenues".  I prefer to use the figures for taxes, not total revenues, when discussing tax policy.

Second, the most important truth to derive from these figures is that Marxists and Democrats lie when they claim that "the Bush Tax Cuts resulted in less revenues to the Treasury and are the cause for Obama's huge deficits". Unfortunately, this lie has been told so often, through the 1%ers control of the megaphones of U.S. society, that even a few otherwise intelligent Americans believe it.

As the figures show, no matter how the numbers are massaged by the international bankers and their puppets, federal tax revenues were substantially higher after the Bush Tax Rate Cuts than they ever were before.

And, no, the higher revenues were not a result of "a growing economy" (though the growing economy was influenced by the lower tax rates).  GNP growth for 2004-2007 figures were 2.9, 2.8, 2.4, and 2.2 percent respectively.  Post-tax-rate-cut revenues far, far outstripped growth of the economy.

I think this forum is for erudite thinkers.  If so, let us not be not be among the fooled who think that tax rate cuts (like JFK's in 1963, Reagan's in 1981, Clinton's in 1997, or Bush's in 2003) have ever yet produced less tax revenue.  Repeat after me, "the MSM has lied to us again and has fooled most Americans", and then let us proceed to an intelligent discussion about tax policy.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I see separate columns for current and constant dollars. Your numbers are from the current column.

Here are the numbers from the constant column:
1998: 2,040.9
1999: 2,136.4
2000. 2,310.0
2001: 2,215.3
2002: 2,028.6
2003: 1,901.1
2004: 1,949.5
2005: 2,153.6
2006: 2,324.1
2007: 2,414.0
2008: 2,288.1
2009: 1,899.0
2010: 1,927.9
2011: 1,998.7

Furthermore, the very own website you've chosen to cite says the following:

"The Bush tax cuts contributed, along with underlying economic conditions, to a historic decline in federal tax revenue. In 2000 total federal tax revenue was as high in proportion to the U.S. economy as it had ever been. By 2004 federal tax revenue in proportion to the economy had fallen to its lowest level in almost fifty years." link

Alright, I read that website too quickly, but inflation-adjusted or not all my claims are still accurate, so I'm failing to see your point.  Of course it would be like the Brookings Institution to make ridiculous claims when reality has a bias against liberals - tax revenues as a % of GDP are of course determined by tax rates, if there are higher taxes there will always be a higher amount of tax collection as a percentage of GDP, but that of course does not mean that the absolute amount of tax revenue is as high as it could be.

Just a couple of comments.

First, aren't these "total receipts", not "total tax receipts"?  Federal taxes are, I think, only around 50-60% of "total revenues".  I prefer to use the figures for taxes, not total revenues, when discussing tax policy.

Second, the most important truth to derive from these figures is that Marxists and Democrats lie when they claim that "the Bush Tax Cuts resulted in less revenues to the Treasury and are the cause for Obama's huge deficits". Unfortunately, this lie has been told so often, through the 1%ers control of the megaphones of U.S. society, that even a few otherwise intelligent Americans believe it.

As the figures show, no matter how the numbers are massaged by the international bankers and their puppets, federal tax revenues were substantially higher after the Bush Tax Rate Cuts than they ever were before.

And, no, the higher revenues were not a result of "a growing economy" (though the growing economy was influenced by the lower tax rates).  GNP growth for 2004-2007 figures were 2.9, 2.8, 2.4, and 2.2 percent respectively.  Post-tax-rate-cut revenues far, far outstripped growth of the economy.

I think this forum is for erudite thinkers.  If so, let us not be not be among the fooled who think that tax rate cuts (like JFK's in 1963, Reagan's in 1981, Clinton's in 1997, or Bush's in 2003) have ever yet produced less tax revenue.  Repeat after me, "the MSM has lied to us again and has fooled most Americans", and then let us proceed to an intelligent discussion about tax policy.

This is such bunk, that it's not even worth addressing in depth.

[WhyteRain]

This is such bunk, that it's not even worth addressing in depth.

That's probably best since your best riposte so far was "ummm.........."