...asking for "sense"...Ptuh!


/sarc off

Trying to make sense of Republicans is like trying to make sense of um well I am stuck there. Republicans don't make sense. That is why they are Republicans.

They will give everyone a 20% tax cut across the board. They will cut the "loopholes" which are actually the deductions that middle class and the poor are likely to take. This is to insure that those 47% who "don't have to pay any taxes" pay their fair share.

They plan on cutting taxes by 20% and putting it on the middle class?

The always claim they are going to cut taxes and close loopholes....WhereTF did the $16 trillion of national debt come from then, heaven?

They are claiming they will cut taxes by 20% which equals a 7% cut for the highest bracket and a 2% cut for the lowest. Then they claim they will close loopholes, but not 20% of loopholes, which will "broaden the base" more bullshit. Very few tax loopholes are available to middle or working class families...so the chances of any significant loopholes being closed are miniscule.

Of course it would make more sense to insist they close the loopholes and 2 years later revisit the tax cut issue. Democrats are just too cowardly to take that stand.

Mortgage deduction, child tax credit, education credits, etc.

They of course don't have the courage to admit this, but their plan is to reduce taxes for the rich and offset them by increasing the tax burden on the middle class.

I don't see any of those deductions as "loopholes either", but agree that those are the most likely things to be cut. Meanwhile, certain companies get tax deductions for "research" such as research into alternative fuels. This is crucial research they will say. However, what are the chances that those companies with release the patent and actually let anyone use their discoveries. No they will keep any patent secret and keep us dependant on the oil they control.

and then blame their failure to deliver on the democrats once they get in office.

But essentially "Cut and Close" means that they want to lower the tax rates and broaden the tax base. Because that's what they felt Reagan did. And Reagan is . . .well, you know, God.

The one clear thing about their tax plan is that there will be winners and there will be losers. We can't know who will be who until the details are disclosed.

They say that we should be willing to trust them because . . . they are good guys who care about you and just misspoke when they said 47% of Americans don't matter.

To put the plan a little more in their terms . . . the plan to slash rates and phase out itemized deductions for higher income tax payers. So essentially they are shifting the tax burden to higher income earners. But what about people whose income is capital gains (hedge funds carried interest) or inheritance (eliminate the inheritance tax)?

In my view the fairest tax is a net worth tax although it would be impossible to administer.

They say that but no matter how you try to get it to work mathematically, it doesn't. They are LIARS.

I hate the blanket demonization of "loopholes" and the attitude that a complex tax structure is a bad thing. Loopholes are neutral, i.e., there are progressive loopholes such as the mortgage deduction, education credits and so on. There are some incredibly progressive business credits too--raise the capital gains rate and offset the raise 100% with a payroll deduction for business

Here's how it could look, business X makes $1,000,000 in taxable income from capital gains and pays 15% (current structure) on that portion of its profit. The business pays $150,000 in taxes and nets $850,000. Pop the rate to 35% and if nothing changes in that company's behavior, they pay $350,000 and at least we can afford to repave a few roads. But, if you combine a deduction for payroll with very specific qualifications (i.e., payroll must equal X% of net profit to qualify) the company could, by hiring extra people, drop their tax rate back to 15% (now, of course, their profit will probably drop because they are paying their employees more, but not as much as if they just took the tax increase without acting). By spreading the money to payroll (which is of course taxed), the government still gets its revenue, there is more money in the hands of consumers, and pretty much everyone wins.

Low, flat rate taxes sound like a great idea on the surface, but they just encourage the invester class to sit on their money. Deductions and tax incentives encourage them to put that money to work. Good tax policy ensures that the money is put to work in beneficial ways, (payroll, green energy credits, affordable housing, education, etc.).

The government can't and shouldn't tell billionaires (and millionaires too) where to spend their money, but they certainly can and should influence them aggressively. I have no problem with moguls getting massive tax breaks if they are actually serving the public good in order to get those breaks.

they are not serving the public good. Sure they'll build mansions and buy property, a few yachts, a bunch of cars, vacations to everywhere, but in sum, they have more than they'll ever need and they sit on it or invest it in businesses that shed employees in order to make a profit and keep them in billions. They do not contribute to the common good

Sorry if I'm not splaining myself properly, but sometimes the words on screen don't match my thoughts.

Back in the 40s and 50s we had a very high top-end tax rate (I believe it was as high as 90%), but of course virtually no one paid that because there were many, many "loopholes". Millionaires could just keep their money, but 90% of it would go to taxes (funding roads, schools, etc.), but, if they hired a couple extra people, gave their employees a few raises, donated heavily to charity, they actually could keep a higher percentage of their massive wealth.
When you drop tax rates and close loopholes, you also take away all incentive to do those things and the rich "invest" in things like a second vacation castle, a yacht to ferry them to their primary yacht, and elevator for their 10-car garage, etc.

eliminating the popular deductions would only allow a 4% cut in taxes.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/repealing-deductions-pays-for-4-tax-cuts-study-says.html