jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (19 posts)

Romney's plan to Increasing taxes through the back door

  1. Petra Vlah profile image60
    Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago

    At the very specific question “what would you cut in terms of deductions like home mortgages, child allocation and charity contribution in order to reform the tax system and reduce the deficit”, Romney’s response was something like that:
    “ I will help the middle class by giving them a $25.000 deductions to use it any way they want (like a bucket one can fill with whatever), BUT most importantly I will eliminate the capital gain taxes”

    Hello, Mr. Romney! Who are you kidding? 

    Most middle class people have little or no investments, so eliminating the capital gain tax will only help your friends (the very rich) and since they make most of their money from investments, by not paying capital gains they will have the biggest brake they can hope for.
    In the other hand, by taking away the mortgage deduction and the child allocation (which most middle class families have), you are increasing our taxes big time, Mr. Romney and you think that by doing it through the back door, we will not understand. 

    Was Obama asleep?  Why didn’t he call Romney on this one?

    1. Genna East profile image90
      Genna Eastposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I wish the governor had been more specific in his statements.  What did he say…”Take $25,000, for example”?  First it was $100,000; then it was $200,000.  During an interview he was asked why eliminate capital gains taxes and he said, “Because it’s money that’s already been taxed at the 35%.”  I couldn’t believe he came out with a statement that was so erroneous.   The way his tax plan stands now, it will only add to the deficit.  Unless he guts discretionary spending, he will have to increase taxes on the middle class; he’ll have no choice.

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
        Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wouldn't it just be easier to eliminate the income tax altogether? I'm pretty sure that would force the government to spend less.

        Or.....if we desperately need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on defense..

        Couldn't we just impose tariffs?

        1. Reality Bytes profile image93
          Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The elimination of income tax would also get rid of a fear-based criminal enterprise, the IRS.  Just what a nation of free people require, the elimination of their tyrants.

          Our defense should defend U.S., the time to be the babysitters of the world should end, or the protected nations should pay for their protection.

          Tariffs would be great against those nations not willing to engage in fair trade policies.  We would not have to impose them, the threat would alter the offenders practices.

          1. 0
            The Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            + 1,000,000

          2. Greek One profile image81
            Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Our defense should defend U.S., the time to be the babysitters of the world should end"


      2. JayeWisdom profile image94
        JayeWisdomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        NOT voting for Romney will take away this threat of more taxes to the middle class (too bad for him and his ultra-rich cronies for whom an end to the capital gains tax would be a boon).

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The end of the capital gains tax (and interest & dividend taxes) would only apply to people making under $200,000. He specifically said that, and it is exactly what is presented on the website. How exactly does that help any rich folks?

    2. Genna East profile image90
      Genna Eastposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Petra; I wanted to share an anecdote with you: 

      I was in Salt Lake during the Olympic Games for a few days, attending a conference.   I met a few local people who had volunteered for the Olympics.  They were absent during part of the conference due to their activities at the Games.  They said Romney had made it quite clear he was going to run for governor of Massachusetts and then seek the Republican nomination to run for POTUS.  They said, “He’s heading your way,” since I was a Boston South Shore resident, and Romney  - for all intents and purposes - was living in Utah at the time.  I’d never heard of him before that time.  They were right because this is exactly what happened. 

      By the way, Romney lobbied for almost a half billion dollars from the US Congress to help fund the Olympics; he doesn’t mention this at all when he talks about how he turned the Games into a profit.  There were some negative feelings in Utah as well concerning infrastructure funds from the federal government that had been diverted to the Games.  I always remember this when he states that the auto industry should have been allowed to go into a managed bankruptcy.   (Romney knows they would still have needed cash to fund their operations which they didn’t have at the time, and no bank would have loaned those funds.)

      I’m not saying he’s not a savvy businessman; he is, and I voted for him for governor.  (I wouldn’t vote for him again.)  But he’s had losses and well as gains with regard to Bain.  For one example, he was vehemently opposed to one particular venture capital investment for Bain.  TPTB ignored him and that venture made billions for Bain, for which Romney has enjoyed the profits as a retired partner for years.  Bain has continued to fund his retirement for over ten years.

  2. 0
    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago

    That is an incorrect statement. 52% of Americans have investment income. Many of them seniors who invested their money to live off the interest income and capital gains in their retirement. Further, he specifically stated these would be for those making under $200,000 a year.

    1. Petra Vlah profile image60
      Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      have you checked the interest that banks are paying those days? Even for the fortunate ones that have over 1/2 a million in the bank the monthly interest is no more than $230. Is that enough to live on?; maybe in Tanzania...

      1. 0
        SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It is not just savings interest, they have actual investments where they receive dividends and when they sell, because they do have to sell sometimes, they receive capital gains. Furthermore, it is a moot point because those things are only taking place for anyone making under $200,000 therefore the entire premise that it benefits any rich person is incorrect.

        1. Petra Vlah profile image60
          Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Eliminating mortgage deductions and child allocation will hurt  the great majority of middle class. Most people DO have mortgages and children while most of the ones who had investments at one time have now little left (after the financial crises has demolished their savings, 401k, mutual funds,etc)

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Most people cannot use all the deductions available. Romney would allocate everyone within a bracket the same amount of deductions, in terms of dollar amount. Then you use them for whatever deductions you have to take. For instance, there is medicine I have to purchase but because it is always just under that 8% of my income, I do not get to deduct it. This way I would be able to offset that cost. Further, the overall tax rate for Middle Class Americans would be reduced as well. I don't see how you can honestly sit there and believe this is going to hurt the Middle Class. Most will receive MORE in deductions because it will not be limited by a percentage of income and you will be able to use the deductions available.

            1. Petra Vlah profile image60
              Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If I am to take my personal case as an example, I will greatly benefit from Romney's proposal. My house has quadrupled in value and it is paid off. Since I am not making $200.000 in income, I  should be thankful not to pay capital gain, but as it happens I am not thinking only about me, but also about people I know and deal with in a daily bases.

  3. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Right. Only on people making $200,000 or less.

    The taxes for the middle class won't go up, because he will also lower the tax rate.

    1. Petra Vlah profile image60
      Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Can you explain this?

      "Governor Romney has a different philosophy. He was on 60 Minutes just two weeks ago and he was asked: Is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver, somebody making $50,000 year?

      "Yes, I think that's fair,I think that's what grows the economy."

      1. Genna East profile image90
        Genna Eastposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What Romney did, here, in Massachusetts, was to increase fees for just about everything in this state – including a fee on gasoline.  Fees are just another term for taxes.  This accounted for over half of the additional income brought into the state’s coffers.  He closed business tax loopholes, but this ended up hurting small business owners more than those at the higher end.  He slashed funding to local municipalities which drove up our property taxes.  He wanted to cut state income taxes to offset the outcry over tax loopholes, but the state legislature wouldn’t allow it.  This opposition - in addition to the extra income derived through the closed loopholes and spiked state fees - is one of the reasons we ended up with a budget surplus, btw, but the surplus was short-lived and began to dissipate before he left office. 

        Here is what many of us in MA think is going to happen should he become president.  We envision Romney doing at the federal level what he did at the state level in Massachusetts.  What he has outlined thus far, although quite vague, sounds familiar.  He will drive state funding back to the states, and those states will have to raise their income taxes or gut spending, programs and services to compensate for the loss.  (Some states will fare better than others.) 

        I’m not saying this is good, bad or indifferent; I’m only saying that it’s going to be painful since most people have no idea what federal funding actually pays for at state levels.  (For example, one third of all income, per capita, in the state of Alaska comes from Federal funding.) This funding impacts most individuals living in that state on some level.  There will be a lot of surprised people if and when this takes place.  He will raise taxes on the Middle Class to offset his overall tax cuts or drive up the deficit as a result. 

        Once again, I’m not saying vote for him or don’t vote for him and vote for Obama.  Not at all.  I’m just pointing out what appears to be his current course, and the unfortunate fact that his 5-point plan just doesn’t add up. I wish I could say otherwise.

  4. Doc Snow profile image94
    Doc Snowposted 4 years ago

    Basically, we don't really know exactly what the governor would do.  He's been very vague on many of his proposals, and flip-flopped on others.  (Should social liberals worry that on reproductive rights, immigration, and marriage rights he *will* do what he said he would during the Republican primary, or should social conservatives worry that he *won't?*)

    In my Hub, "Can Mr. Romney Deliver A Prosperous Economy?" I questioned whether it is possible to reconcile his tax cuts, military spending plans, and promises of a balanced budget.  The only prospect I see of doing so is government that is not just leaner, but so radically cut as to be eviscerated.  Will that be politically practical?  If not, what else will give?  And what will the effect in the 'real world' be?

    The Federal belt-tightening we've had since 2009 has been a major drag on employment growth--arguably necessary for deficit-fighting, but that nasty side effect of chopping federal, state and local budgets isn't going to go away just because the White House turns 'red.'