MIGHT produce NO loss in revenue as more individuals would be working. (Actually…I don’t think that…some deductions will need to be eliminated…but it will be the combination that makes it revenue neutral.) I’ll let Mr. Ryan and the CBO work to figure that out perhaps with a little help from Art Laffer.
That’s actually my point it will only produce no loss in revenue if this round of tax cuts spurs up the economy, which I don’t think it will. The economy is driven by innovation, tax cuts without companies doing innovation won’t generate job growth.
The problem as I see it is, people are becoming responsible and saving their money for a rainy day. What we need to do is get back to the times were people work in same company for 40 to 50 years and retire. This type of job security is what will get the economy going again. As I see it both sides have it wrong, what I would purpose to replace Romney’s plan is if you company is worth more than say a million dollars, and your total revenue is more than it was last year you can only claim deductions if you hire and expand your company.
Let’s say its 1995 and I own a company that makes CRT monitors, people are buying monitors as I’m able to create bigger CRT screens. Now fast forward to 2001, LCD monitors come out but there still more expansive than CRT monitors, but what if a small company comes out of no where that can make LCD monitors at a cheaper price than my CRT monitors. I’m screwed i’ll go out of buisness, because I didn’t invest in R&D. In my oppinion if we only give deductions if people expand their company more companies might invest in R&D and get innovation going again.
Microsoft is a great example of this, look at the Kinect. Now the problem is the Kinect isn’t the next Microprocessor because due to its line of sight limitations and camera resolution it limits its practical use, but we need more stuff like this.
As a couple of you have stated his plan will only work if we see people jumping to higher tax brackets which in the end means we need to get people to save less and spend more, and we can’t do that without innovation and progress.
Investment and less taxes puts more money back into the economy, generates more job, thus more folks working thus more revenue generated.
Exactly right! But how do we get people to horde less of their money and start the investment process again? Giving them more money to horde away isn’t going to get the economy going again. This isn’t the Regan years anymore, where we basically had things like Microprocessor driving economy. We don’t have anything like that anymore.
Not sure what you are reseasrching, but suggest you look at Medicare, AMTRAK, US Post Office, HUD, PICK anything. Govt is union shop, 8-5, work past 5 then you must need help so you hire someone else and you keep on till you have what we have now. Govt employees make more than civy folks do.
Again I 100% agree with you. I don’t want this topic to go off on what Obama is doing wrong because all I will do is agree with you. I want to talk about Romney and how he plans on fixing things, and I can’t see how he will do it.
After the first year you better show some revenue, you CANNOT just keep writing down, its does not work that way.
My point is this loop hole in Mitt’s plan works, and if I’m rich guy I can easily have underlings under me to handle the technicals behind the loop hole.
Your problem is that you are dealing with a STATIC ANALYSIS. Look at the tax revenue for 2008. Was it higher or lower than 2010? Hint: Higher!
You just made my point for me. I did static analysis to show the problem, if we look and see a decent overall growth in people jumping to higher tax deductions say over a 4 to 10 year period than his plan might work. But as Chris Wallace said while interviewing Paul Ryan, what IF the math doesn’t add up, and the math WONT add up if we don’t see job growth and this alone could send us into another depression.
Paul Ryan dodged Chris Wallace when he was hammering on their contingency plans IF we don’t see growth…he doesn’t have one. I see Mitt as incompetent and just blindly taking ideas from Paul Ryan and other republicans and assume they work. This just means Mitt doesn’t have back bone and he’ll just be another Schwarzenegger, who caters to the wrong people. The left does this with Unions all the time.
let’s stay out of the weeds on the actual lawmaking
I don’t want to stay out of the weeds, I don’t want to just assume that everything is going to just be better under Romney when the math just doesn’t work. All I know about Mitt’s plans are what he says about them, who knows if he would even be able to block that loop hole. Who knows if his campaign contributers even want him to close that loop hole.
**Blindly assuming our politicians will just get it right is a absurd notion that has gotten this country to this point in the first place.