I watched the interviews, and both ryan/romney seemed to not want to do or say anything that could be made public. They seem to be concerned when Pelosi and Reid were accused about back room stuff, but now they seem to be doing the same thing. If they have something good, probably a good time to let the electorate know about it. Same thing with stupid tax returns. I personally don't care how much money he made or where he parked it, just can't figure out what would be so much worse than not releasing them.
There are two problems with that approach. One, people have made investments in reliance on the existence of the mortgage deduction. Now suddenly the government decides to say "nevermind?" That's very unfair in my opinion. Two, we have been down this road before. Deductions get eliminated in exchange for lower rates. The next time a democrat gets in, the rates go right back up or even higher, but the deductions don't come back. If Romney did do this, he'd stand a very good chance of being a one term president.
Oh I agree with this point. My statement assumed the rate would be lowered to make it truly revenue neutral.
If you would like to know, here is a simple google of it. http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/taxes Or, were you just spouting anything to make Romney appear to have something of substance? Ryan won't say, Romney won't say, Obama does say, but yet you use the GOP standard of turning everything around. Simple minded IMO.
OK, just to satisfy you I waded through a cesspool of lies on that page. Here is what I learned: "2. Cut inefficient and unfair tax breaks. Cut tax breaks that are inefficient, unfair, or both so that the American people and businesses spend less time and less money each year filing taxes and cannot avoid their responsibility by gaming the system. This includes cutting tax preferences for high-income households; eliminating special tax breaks for oil and gas companies; closing loopholes for investment fund managers; and eliminating benefits for corporate jet owners." So that is just as vague as Romney's plan. Obama's tax "plan" is mainly an exercise in class warfare, with repeated references to the rich, etc. So in addition to screwing some higher income tax payers, he wants to cripple the oil and gas industry even more than he has done already. Goodby to more jobs there. Oh, don't let me forget the big one. eliminating benefits for corporate jet owners. wow, that will pay for medicare by itself. In sum, it's a load of ambiguous garbage that the democrat senate will never pass anyway, because they are as owned by many of the same special interests as the republicans.
Oh, this is below you. A Cesspool of lies. What an easy and childish way out. I know you are, but what am I. Come on, get real.
I specifically said his plan was as vague as Romney's. Not a single specific loophole or deduction is identified. There are just ritual swipes at the rich, oil and gas and private jet owners. Seriously, this is better than what Romney laid out? This is boring to me for the obvious reason that neither plan has a shot of being enacted. The dems already had control of both houses and the WH and did basically nothing, other than to raise tax rates through Obamacare. Obama seems serious about not extending the Bush tax rates on >$250k taxpayers. If the republicans retain the House, they can never go along with that, so that will insure that none of the Bush rates stay in place and the middle class will get an enormous tax increase. If that's what people want, they should vote for Obama.
Why should renters subsidize those that buy? Why is one mode of housing superior to another. Everyone says buying a house is the "American Dream". That's true if you WANT to buy a house. But why can't other lifestyles be the "American Dream"? There's only ONE American Dream?? This is the problem with our tax code. Its become a game of carrot and stick instead of just raising the revenue needed to fund govt. If you look at all the subsidies in the tax code directed at the middle class, it's readily apparent that this is the most subsidized segment in our history. The effective tax rate for a median income family of four is LESS THAN 6%. Federal income taxes on middle-income families have declined significantly in recent decades. In 2000, the year before the 2001 tax cut enacted by President Bush and Congress, the median-income family of four paid 8.0 percent of its income in individual income taxes, according to Tax Policy Center estimates â a smaller share than in any year since 1967 (except for 1998 and 1999).[4] The Bush tax cuts further reduced middle-income tax obligations. This year (i.e., when people pay income tax on 2011 income) the Tax Policy Center estimates that the median-income family of four will pay 5.6 percent of its income in federal income taxes. The 5.6 percent rate (as well as the other rates discussed here for both 2011 and other years) is the effective tax rate, or the percentage of its income that a family pays in taxes. It is well below the 15 percent marginal tax rate â the rate paid on a filerâs next dollar of income â that a family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum faces. A familyâs effective tax rate typically is significantly lower than its marginal tax rate, because the family takes the standard deduction (or, in some cases, itemized deductions), personal exemptions, and tax credits such as the child tax credit, and because a portion of the familyâs taxable income is taxed at lower rates. (For the median-income family, some of its income is not taxed, some is taxed at a 10 percent rate, and some is taxed at a 15 percent rate.) http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151