Hamar

Actually, all politicians are against it. At least the ones in a position to change it. They are all rich and all take advantage of those loop holes, all of them.

Look at when the democrats yelled how they would investigate Romney's investment plan because it had more money in it than was possible... He used loopholes to do that, but they never really investigated it because they all do the same thing and do not want those holes closed. The only reason they even said it is because that is the thing to do these days, once you say you will investigate this or that, then people assume the person being investigated did something wrong. All these investigations are simply political tools to attack the opposition.

As for tax codes, no one is going to put in a flat tax unless the they can also have a way for the rich to avoid it. Politicians are all rich...

Holy Diver

Admitted? Of frickin course thats how things happen. According to your logic, a president should have no stances on anything, he should just sign or not sign laws. Let congress work it out.

WTF?

On one of this, and every campigns biggest topics, TAXES, the self declared buisness success has yet to tell you how his prooposed plan actually works. Its kind of stunning. He has, however, told you how the details are too much to explain to you, and you should just trust him.

Mitt Romney is trying to sell me something behind door #3, I ain't buying it.

Drewski

Betcha get a lot of that on the Price is Right.

Holy Diver

I see what you did there....

Drewski

Couldn't go with the real quote....as.....well.... you get.

The Brandon Five

But you are buying whatever Barack has behind door #103.

Holy Diver

He is giving #s.

Door #103 is made of glass because I can see what is behind it

If you make $249,999/year, your taxes will still stay at the same level. Anything you make over that will be taxed at the same rate they were taxed during the 90's.

Thats pretty easy to understand.



I often hear the argument, mostly from conservatives, that we need to know what the future tax codes will look like so the job creators can prepare for the future when creating jobs. What does it say about the current nominee when he can't give employers a fair vision of what will happen if they cast a vote for him? It invalidates that particualr talking point, if you support Romney.

DocHoliday

Behind door 103 is the policies we've seen the last four years.

We know what we're getting. And you'll go "FOUR YEARS OF FAILUREEEEE" to which I'll say four years of better than it could have been.

I'll take the devil I know, not the guy that's changed his positions on everything in the spam of ten years. I mean, do you really think Romney has a position?

It's so transparent the guy is playing to what he'll get elected. All politicians do it of course, but brazenness with which he's done it is shocking.

"I am severely conservative"

LOL

__________________

Real World

It's hard to know what the intricate & specific details are, cuz he hasn't really mentioned any. To me, from a general standpoint, I'm not too crazy about his proposal. I think seeking a 20% across the board cut, paid for by closing loopholes, seems a little too good to believe. At least without some specifics to work with. What I do agree with though, is the general premise that rates aren't as relevent if there are innumerable deductions at people's disposal. For example, what good is a 30% rate, if hardly anyone ever pays it? I think the general goal is to create a "firmer" rate system. One where rates are lowered, and deductions are as well. I think too many people focus on the rate segment of the tax code, when the only number that really matters, is the actual amount people pay. Consider your cell phone or cable bill for example. Companies advertise $49 or $99 a month which sounds nice, but in the end the actual amount you pay is a lot more. Tax rates in essence work that way, but in reverse. The rate is 30%, but by the time someone is done deducting, they're actually paying a lot less.

Basically it's almost impossible to disect his proposal without more specifics. So all we can do is speculate that his aim will be to firm up rates, by eliminated deductions and "loopholes" that lots of people enjoy. It could be as simple as not allowing people earning over $X to take a deduction, or only allowing a filer to deduct a maximum dollar amount. I think the general idea is one that makes a lot of sense (I've been saying it for years), but without specifics it's a "where's the beef" type deal.



It's not strictly a democrat thing. Both parties have their sacred deductions that they will fight tooth and nail for. Furthermore, both parties are lobbied heavily be the different special interest groups who want to preserve, expand, and create more deductions that benefit their different clients. Each party loves to manipulate the flow of money, and the behavior of the american people.

Some people feel a flat tax is regressive, or unfair. That 5-10-25% of a $10k income, hurts that lower earner more than 5-10-25% of $100k earner would, on up to 5-10-25% of a $1 million earner, etc. There are lots of different ways to define "Fair" in my opinion. Fair could mean everyone paying the same amount. It could mean everyone paying according to the services they use. It can mean everyone paying according to what they can afford. Ask 100 people and you'll get alot of different definations. There's some credence to alot of those views, even those that run opposite of each other. To me, a simpler code, with a smaller set of firmer rates, set across a easy to identify income brackets is the easiest answer. Start at/around the poverty rate, and go up with simple numbers. At $25k you pay 5%, $50k you 10%, $100k you pay 15%, $250k you pay $20%, $1 million you pay 25%, etc. Not that these numbers and rates are exactly as I'd have them, but you get the jist. The bottom line is that a flat tax isn't ever going to happen, but a "flatter" tax certainly could.

I don't think he's making it up as he's going along, but without specifics that charge is certainly valid. Politicians are intentionally vague, whenever possible. Specifics allow for increased analysis and criticisms. It's why people run on Hope & Change, or I'll create Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.

I think Romney is smart enough to know that whatever he proposes now, will never be accepted in the senate (should he win). Any plan he proposes were he to be president, would be a negotiated deal between the different houses, and parties.

Touche!

Seriously though, can anyone really believe that such a mentally challenged soul was speaker of the house? Will the country ever recover from the last 12 years of "leadership" we've recieved from both parties? I have serious doubts we ever will.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Kid~Brady

To be fair, we've had 12 years of failure now then.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.