if the government takes back the bush tax cuts and decreases the deficit by 5% it means they printed less money which means there is less inflation. whether the cuts make up for themselves i have no idea but it is very simple that when you take away the bush tax cuts that there will be less revenue to the us government. it might be better for the dollar long term and a good idea. but yes, people will have less money to invest and spend that means less growth short term.

So, how does the thought process work?

Spend a a large chunk of life - years running for president - 4-8 years in office if you win. Spend part of your fortune - Romney spent ~50 mil in the primary in 08. Lose a lot of time you could've been spending with your family or just having fun. Lose a lot time you could've been making money. Lose a lot of capital you could've had working and making money for you.

All of this so you can have a little bit lower tax rate. These don't seem like thoughts of someone who has **** you money.

NO its not a "little" lower tax rate, its a lot lower. He is going to lower the top bracket tax rate the most. The estate tax is going to be repealed so his sons can inherit 100% of his wealth without the government taking a dime out of it.

In fact the repeal of the estate tax is class warfare, plain and simple. The Walton family alone plans to gain a $33 billion tax cut if the estate tax is repealed. Where do you make up that lost revenue? Through cutting programs for the poor and middle class. He is paying for his tax cuts on the backs of the working class. This isn't a partisan talking point, this is the facts. I've presented the facts and I got Cali Bobby refuting Factcheck.org which talks to several budgetary analysts saying tax cuts don't pay for themselves, and he thinks that they in fact do.

Here this is how tax cuts work, say I make $60,000 a year and pay 20% in taxes, or $12,000 a year in taxes. The next year, the tax rate is lowered to 10%, I now pay $6,000 a year in taxes. In order for the individual to generate more revenue in the next year with his new found tax cut to make up for the lost revenue for the government, at a 10% tax rate, and his additional $6,000 He needs to pull in $121,000. In other words, he has to invest his $6,000 and make about a 1000% return on it.

I don't if any of you are stock investors, but unless you're a gifted penny stock trader, 1000% return in a single year is very VERY rare and uncommon.

So if Romney has $250,000,000, and the estate tax is 45% (It really is 45% for any inheritance over $5,000,000) He is going to gain about $110-$115 million from repealing the estate tax for his sons inheritance from being elected. That seems like a nice return on his investment and his friends investment into his presidency.

I didn't realize Romney supported repeal of the estate tax. Does this require legislation or can it be done by executive order? He might get my vote after all.

This is the first post of yours on this forum that I like.

You're right; it's completely unfair that money earned through investing is treated differently than money earned through laboring.

Depends on if your assets are over $5,000,000. Unless you're in the wealthiest 1% it probably wouldn't even affect you. Right now the government is starved of revenue, as planned in Starve the BEast fiscal policy, the question is, what now?

The conservatives have crippled the American peoples government with their tax policies over the last 30 years.

I really can't understand the logic here. How could the estate tax possibly be your deciding factor?

Repeal requires legislation.

Do you know how wealthy the "1%" is? I didn't realize it had gone up to 5 million, it's gone up quite a bit, hasn't been long since it was ~1 million.

Because I want the estate tax repealed? Would require Republicans taking the senate, even then no where close to a sure thing.

Hard to believe anything Romney says, but this is a pretty good stance to have.

Ahhhh Jimmy. Your posts seem to enrage me even though I'm modestly pro-Obama.

First, stop with the Eisenhower tax rates. It makes you seem uneducated because any tax rate before The Tax Reform Act of 1986 is meaningless. Second of all the majority of the 1% are high income professionals paying assloads of taxes such as professional athletes, physicians, lawyers, etc. I think you--and your income spreading ilk--would be better served arguing for the following:

1. Dividends treated as ordinary income, allow The Company to deduct the full dividend thereby avoiding double taxation.
2. Treat real capital gains as ordinary income, ie: allow a CPI adjustment for every calendar year the investment is held.

I dont personally know anyone iwth over $5,000,000 in assets, but Im young.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...e-tax-now.html

Economists think the estate tax needs to go back to what it was, 55%. Romney wants to make it 0%. A complete repeal of the estate tax means there will be a lot of money never to see the light of day in our economy ever again since they will be withheld in stock portfolio's and overseas bank accounts for some rich man's children.

I would think the Walton family could get by just as easily on a $55 billion inheritance as they could a $88 billion inheritance. Even with their vast amount of wealth, they still pay their employees really crappy wages.

Not having an estate tax in place means that money has to come from somewhere since its no longer coming from wealthy peoples estates. Where would you recommend it comes from?

THe way a complete repeal of the estate tax would work is the wealthier you are, the more it benefits you, hence it is a regressive tax, something that economists think are the worst kinds of taxes.

Im looking to historic tax rates post WWII, we had a booming economy despite much higher tax rates on the wealthy. Tax cuts being the end all be all of a good economy seems to be a false ideology. Its not that long ago, both my parents lived in America when the tax rates on the wealthy were much higher and they both agree finding a living wage job that didn't pay impoverished wages was much easier to find back then, plus the debt wasn't even an issue.

By disqualifying me from looking back to pre-1986 tax rates, then you don't even allow studying tax rates in which the WWII debt paid itself down as a percentage of GDP almost every year.


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3695

This CBPP, who might I add, their math is spot on, on most of their budgetary analysis, says it is all but impossible for Romney's tax plan to remain revenue neutral. It will most likely run up the debt.

I've come to 2 conclusions based on this report.

#1 Romney is completely incompetent when it comes to budgetary math or is counting on rubies and fairy dust to create enough GDP growth that the tax cuts do in fact pay for themselves.

#2 He is plain out lying and knows his tax cut plan is not revenue neutral but passes it off that way anyways because it sounds better to constituents.

The last tax cutter in chief also had several tax cuts. None of them were paid for, the debt doubled, job growth was minimal, almost non-existent when population growth is factored in, and the economy was in shambles when he left office.

By all means, if you want to try this again vote for Romney. Prove me wrong man but I guess we could always use another nail in the coffin of supply-side economics and Starve the Beast fiscal theory.

I don't personally know anyone who was rendered to Rumania to have their balls zapped, but I'm white.
Do you know what a stock is?

Do people who inherit money ever spend any of it?

Why do people put money in overseas bank accounts? Why would they need to put inherited money in an overseas bank account if the estate tax was 0%?

I'm sure you're wealthy relative to many Americans, why not start with you?

Jimmy-- I agree with you that Romney's Tax Plan is jackholish and will expand the deficit more. I agree that Bush was horrible. Do me a favor.

What is your ideal tax rate/brackets? You can do ranges and not get super specific, but what taxes/percentage should the following pay (not counting FICA or State)?
1. Single 25 year old man making $50K?
2. Family of 4 with parents making $100K combined (two teachers)?
3. Family of 4 with combined income $500K (a brain surgeon)?
4. Family of 4 with combined income $5MM (Wall Street Exec)?

Also what do you with dividends and capital gains?

I think the buffet rule is a good starting place for the tax rates. I honestly believe the economy and debt situation will improve if that rule is implemented. Even Warren Buffet complains that congress coddles the wealthy too much and that he pays a lower tax rates than his secretary. What the Buffet rule would do would make it so no one who is incredibly wealthy in this country, pays less than 30% of their years income or gains in wealth, in taxes. I think thats a good starting point for the taxes.

Romney is taking the opposite direction, to make the tax code flatter which is regressive. The way Romney's tax plan works is the wealthier you are the more it benefits you. I don't have anywhere near $5,000,000+ in assets on the horizon let alone anyone I might inherit from, so his repeal of the estate tax would offer no benefit to me personally.

His plan is bunk, its garbage, and you can't say I dont think or vote in my own economic self interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqIgb48iq6w

^This is a video by Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength. They would prefer it that they get taxed higher. As one of the millionaires in the video put it "RIch people arent the cause of a robust economy, they are the result of a robust economy"