• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Wait.....what?

What's the basic deduction for a family of four? Wouldn't that be somewhere above $12,000?

At $17,000 limit would effectively end the mortgage interest deduction without making that the issue. VERY SLIMEY....
 
If Romney wants to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction to pay for his 20 percent marginal rate cuts (which disproportionately benefit the wealthiest taxpayers), why doesn't he just come out and say it? If I vote for you, is this just going to be a bomb you drop on me after the fact?
 
Can someone explain to me how lowering rates, but simultaneously limiting deductions in a revenue neutral manner will do anything to spur economic growth? If I end up paying the same amount of tax (or collectively, all taxpayers end up paying the same amount of tax), what does it matter if I get there by paying a higher rate with more deductions or a lower rate with fewer deductions? As a tax policy matter, I can see the argument for lower rates and fewer deductions (less picking winners and losers and encouraging or discouraging behavior through the tax code), but I don't see how it is pro-growth, as portrayed by Romney.
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
Can someone explain to me how lowering rates, but simultaneously limiting deductions in a revenue neutral manner will do anything to spur economic growth? If I end up paying the same amount of tax (or collectively, all taxpayers end up paying the same amount of tax), what does it matter if I get there by paying a higher rate with more deductions or a lower rate with fewer deductions? As a tax policy matter, I can see the argument for lower rates and fewer deductions (less picking winners and losers and encouraging or discouraging behavior through the tax code), but I don't see how it is pro-growth, as portrayed by Romney.
Click to expand...

It won't. No intelligent person thinks it will. Economic growth has never been the actual point of a tax increase.
 
jhmd2000 said:
It won't. No intelligent person thinks it will. Economic growth has never been the actual point of a tax increase.
Click to expand...

Romney just said lowering rates (but keeping revenue the same by eliminating deductions) will enable small business to hire more people.

ETA, he said it multiple times. I just don't get it.
 
Last edited:
I guess jhmd is all for government handing out more coupons.
 
jhmd2000 said:
How in God's name is phasing out the mortgage interest deduction going to lead to economic growth? Does that make ANY sense to anybody?
Click to expand...

Current housing policy skews incentives towards suburbanization. But we know city-dwellers, many of them renters in multi-family apartment buildings, are more innovative, more productive, healthier, and have a smaller environmental footprint than people in suburbs. Anything that makes us a nation of sky-scraper dwellers is good for long-run growth.
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
Can someone explain to me how lowering rates, but simultaneously limiting deductions in a revenue neutral manner will do anything to spur economic growth? If I end up paying the same amount of tax (or collectively, all taxpayers end up paying the same amount of tax), what does it matter if I get there by paying a higher rate with more deductions or a lower rate with fewer deductions? As a tax policy matter, I can see the argument for lower rates and fewer deductions (less picking winners and losers and encouraging or discouraging behavior through the tax code), but I don't see how it is pro-growth, as portrayed by Romney.
Click to expand...

Correct. Effective tax rates are the ones that have to be changed to change incentives for work (which I think are overstated anyhow).

But, at the infamous fundraiser, Mitt said that he wouldn't have to actually change any policies to get capital back in the game in the US. He thinks he's the confidence fairy, so debating any actual policies he's advocating might be entirely beside the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top