|
|||||||||||||||||||
     Founders
Managing Directors
Blogger Pool
|
 Saturday, January 26, 2008
Of course, for us Romney supporters, we have known that Romney is the choice for a long time.
Vin Weber and Ceasar Conda have an article over at NRO stating exactly why Romney is the choice. Specifically, they review Romney's economic stimulus plan. They outline the basics of the plan: For individuals, it would permanently reduce the lowest tax rate from 10 percent to 7.5 percent, providing up to a $400 tax cut for those affected. It would also eliminate payroll taxes on workers older than 65.All of these changes to the tax code work not only a short term gain for individuals and businesses, but represent a significant step in the right direction in keeping our economy healthy. Here's the bottom line: In 2008, we have a clear choice. We can select a nominee whose economic views have been shaped by almost 30 years spent in the free market, making businesses work and creating jobs. Or, we can pick a longtime politician who has never run a corner grocery store, much less the largest enterprise in the world — the federal government. The choice is clear, and the choice is Mitt Romney. Sunday, January 13, 2008
Senator John McCain, by his own admission, is not the sharpest tack in the shed on economic issues. So when McCain attacks Romney via mailers in Michigan accusing Romney of raising taxes by $700 million, it's a good idea to check the REAL numbers.
$260 million -- Romney's fee hikes on targeted services...like highway billboards, duplicate copies of driver's licenses, bar exams, registering a boat, installing underground water tanks, filing a court case, transporting hazardous waste, etc. This represents less than 10% of the $3 billion deficit Romney closed in his first year. $240 million -- Fee hikes that were passed PRIOR to Romney's first year in office, yet did not take effect until Romney was IN office. $210 million -- Romney closed corporate tax loopholes...for example, banks that did some real estate as part of their business were claiming to be "real estate lenders" as their primary business and were thereby qualifying for a major tax shelter. Closing the corporate tax loopholes are simply enforcing existing tax code as it was intended...to call this a tax hike is like calling it a sentencing when you send an escaped convict back to prison. Add all three up, and there's your $700 million. Romney's contribution is only about $470 million, NOT $700 million, and NONE of it can honestly be considered tax hikes. Furthermore, the $260 million of fee hikes that Romney approved were more than offset by various TAX CUTS he implemented...in other words, better than a "revenue neutral" shift of taxes to service fees, which any conservative should like. The service fees were generally in line with national and local inflationary trends, as well as making the prices more reflective of the actual costs. Fees generally make accounting in government more transparent, as you can see where the money is going...and there's really no good reason to subsidize a service cost below its market value anyway. Romney's fiscal record on cutting spending is unimpeachable. And here's the list of Romney's tax cuts, the biggest of which was his reversal of the $250 million retroactive capital gains tax in 2005. CAPITAL GAINS TAXES INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT PROPERTY TAX RELIEF 2004 SALES TAX HOLIDAY 2005 SALES TAX HOLIDAY BIOTECH MANUFACTURING JOBS TAX REBATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PRESCRIPTION DRUGS TAX RELIEF COMMUTER TAX RELIEF VETERANS TAX RELIEF HOME HEATING OIL DEDUCTION/ENERGY EFFICIENT CREDIT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FIRE SAFETY TAX DEDUCTION CONFORMITY TO FEDERAL INCOME TAX CODE MEDICAL DEVICE TAX CREDIT MOTION PICTURE TAX CREDIT BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT EXTENTION HISTORIC REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT Labels: fees, massachusetts, mitt romney, Taxes Wednesday, December 19, 2007
I had so many comments on my Fair Tax post that I wanted to respond to some of the points made:
First, several people made the point that Europe has a Value Added Tax (VAT) that is more than the 10% figure that I quoted. All of the research that I read made a distinction between the VAT and a national retail sales tax like the Fair Tax. This distinction is based on the mechanics of the tax. The value added tax looks at what a firm adds to the value of a product where a national sales tax is an excise tax levied at the point of sale. The end result looks similar because the VAT is passed on to the consumer. However, the VAT requires firms to report the value added at each stage of production. A national retail sales tax does not require any such reporting other than that the national rate has been applied. The figure I used looked just at those countries using a national retail sales tax and did not include those countries using a VAT. Second, several readers expressed frustration at the current tax system and argued that we are essentially paying the same rate as what the Fair Tax would impose. That may be true, but I don’t understand how that merits scrapping the current system. If the Fair Tax does the exact same thing, why should switch? The tie goes toward stability, does it not? People have planned, not just in the short term, but in the long term for the tax benefits of the current system. Revolutionizing the way we tax would upset the expectations of a millions of Americans and businesses. Thus, doing something that drastic requires not just generalized frustration, but serious injustice. Generally, I think that frustration with the current tax system has made people over-eager to do something else. I don’t deny that the current system has its flaws. Indeed, it should be flatter and simpler. However, taking the extreme position of overhauling what we have and disturbing the expectations of those who are paying taxes seems unwise to me. More rebuttals to come Labels: fair tax, mike huckabee, Taxes
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
I want to disclaim at the beginning that I am no tax policy expert. Yet, I think that the concepts argued for and against the “fair tax” as proposed by Mike Huckabee are simple enough that most people should be able to understand them.
Mike Huckabee describes on his campaign web site his version of the Fair Tax: When the FairTax becomes law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness.There are a lot of different points to be made. Easily dismissed is the claim that the Fair Tax will release us from pain and unfairness. Such a silly claim gets at the unseriousness of the Huckabee campaign in general. More substantively, only six countries have ever adopted retail sales taxes at rates of 10% or more; none do now. 58 Fla. L. Rev. 1043, 1048; Joel Slemrod, Presentation to the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform: The Costs of Tax Complexity (Mar. 3, 2005), available at http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/meetings/ docs/slemrod 03032005.ppt. Huckabee next says that all will get a monthly rebate for purchases up to the poverty line. This argues against one of the main points that he promotes in arguing for the Fair Tax: administrative ease. Huckabee has argued for abolishing the IRS, but it seems that he would have to replace it with some other agency by which to mail out every American’s monthly rebate check. The type of money being passed through the mail would also invite all sorts of criminal behavior (remember how well the debit cards went after Katrina?). Huckebee also says that the Fair Tax will create positive incentives for saving. That is probably true. Through a combination of zero tax on savings and the dramatic increase of goods after the Fair Tax is enacted, people are likely to refrain from spending. The Fair Tax creates the incentive to withhold income from being put back into the economy. How this will affect the economy only an economist could predict, but the incentives seem to lead to a slowing of the economy as people withhold their dollars from the marketplace. However, eventually, even savings will be taxed as they are spent. The savings argument is misleading because it really only marks a delay in taxation, not an abolition of the tax on savings. Huckabee argues that both taxes are progressive. However, the Fair Tax is difficult to make progressive. Since the tax applies to all at the point of sale, regardless of economic status, it would generally appear to be either a flat or regressive tax. The single rate of taxation on purchases hits low-income people harder than high-income people because the purchases are a larger proportion of the low-income person’s wealth. Higher income people are able to save a larger portion of their earnings. Thus, even with the rebates he proposes, for anyone above the poverty line, the tax is regressive. To make it progressive, Congress would have to add in additional complexity Graduated tax rates, differential rates, or higher rates all would lead to increasingly complex taxpayer behavior and legislative and administrative responses. 88 Calif. L. Rev. 2095, 2141. In sum, and these certainly aren’t all the points to be made about the Fair Tax system, the Fair Tax likely does little to improve the current tax system and likely does harm. It does little to improve the complexity or administrative burden. It only shifts the time of taxation from when it was produced to when it was consumed. Finally, it likely dulls economic growth by creating a disincentive to spend. Beyond its inherent political impracticability, the Fair Tax should be rejected. The better alternative, and the more realistic one, is the one Mitt Romney has proposed: lower marginal rates, end the death tax, end taxes on savings, and lower corporate taxes. These things combined will do more for the economy and the nation than the enactment of the Fair Tax. Labels: fair tax, mike huckabee, Taxes
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Mitt,
You have had my support since you announced you were running. I've followed your campaigns since you ran against Ted Kennedy. I was impressed when you turned around the Winter Olympics. I grew up in Massachusetts and I know how hard it is for a Republican to lead in that state, but you did a fantastic job. I believe that you have truly evolved as a person and candidate and your positions and values best qualify you for the Presidency. I really want you to win this election. I'm going to offer some amateur advice, which hopefully you will consider since I am a prototypical primary voter. Stop Huckabee This Huckabee phenomenon has been impressive, but now is the time to stop it. I think Mike Huckabee is a decent, likable man and a good debater. I understand his appeal. He says is in favor of the fair tax which is an increasingly popular position. However, when I saw this video of Governor Huckabee begging Arkansas for a tax increase, I must say, I was deeply concerned. Play this video again and again and again in campaign ads. It's going to stop people in their tracks. Mike Huckabee is far better than any Democrat alternative, but he is not the ideal candidate. If most Republican voters are like me, the most important things they want is a victory over terror and low taxes. Huckabee believes Gitmo is not in America's interest. On his campaign site, he says, "As president, I will fight this war hard, but I will also fight it smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence weapons as well as our military might." When you read between the lines, it sounds a little soft as though he might try to negotiate with our enemies. Maybe he could make Nancy Pelosi Secretary of State. In an interview with George Stephanopolous, he starts channeling Ron Paul: " Stephanopoulus: Pres. Bush said in his second inaugural address, "It is the policy of the US to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture." Has Pres. Bush's policy been a success? Huckabee: Well, the problem is, sometimes when you get what you want, you don't want what you get. And this is a great case of that happening. I don't think it's the job of the US to export our form of government. It's the job of the US to protect our citizens, to make us free and us safe, and to create an enviable kind of government and system that everybody else will want. Q: So it wouldn't be the core of your foreign policy? A: Absolutely not, because I don't think we can force people to accept our way of life, our way of government. What we can to is to create the strongest America, freedom internally, secure borders, a safer nation. That makes a whole lot more sense to me than spending billions to try to prop up some government we don't even like when we get it." Huckabee has granted clemency to 703 criminals including a dozen murderers during his terms as governor which is more than all six of his neighboring states and more than Bill Clinton: Louisiana – 213. Mississippi – 24. Missouri – 79. Oklahoma – 178. Tennessee – 32. Texas – 98. As for Immigration, these are some of Huckabees positions: "When he was governor, Huckabee held the following positions on illegal immigration: He supported higher education benefits for children of illegal immigrants, opposed a federal roundup of illegals from his state in 2005, opposed a 2001 bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote in the state, and in 2001, a member of his administration pushed for legislation to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants." Taking all of these facts into consideration, I get the impression that the Compassionate Conservative in Huckabee seems to be more soft than compassionate. Since Huckabee has only recently surged in the polls, his record might not be very well known. It is very important to show these differences. Now that I've gotten Stop Huckabee out of my system, there are two more issues I would like addressed which I think are winners. The CIA Someone HAS to fix this. Our intelligence is an embarrassment. How can we stop Al Qaeda if we cannot infiltrate their organization? How can we formulate a position against Iran when our intelligence keeps contradicting itself. How can we protect ourselves with such an incompetent agency? I trust Israel's intelligence far more than our own. A 10 year plan to eliminate our need for foreign oil I am sick and tired of having to kiss the ass of dictators and radical Islamists stuck in the 12th century simply because they have oil. The way Islam treats women is disgusting. Take the case of the woman who was gang raped in Saudi Arabia by 7 men and then sentenced to 200 lashings and 6 months in prison for being in the company of a man who was not a relative. Let's not even mention that the Saudis financing terror and Wahabism around the world and that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. If Saudi Arabia did not have oil, we would have labeled them a terrorist and criminal nation a long time ago. Politics sure makes for strange bedfellows. We are supposed to champion human rights, not ignore them when convenient. Then we have Hugo Chavez reviving communism in our hemisphere and making billions from Citgo while constantly insulting us and aiding our enemies. This has got to stop. I find it hard to believe that with all our innovation, we cannot become oil independent in 10 years. We are The United States of America for crying out loud. Where is my hydrogen car? Where are my ethanol gas stations? Let's stop messing around and get it done. I'm about to get a new car next year and I'm very disappointed in my choices. Believe me, this will tremendously improve our foreign policy position and make us much safer. I don't hear any Republicans leading the charge in this area. I truly believe Republicans will stand up and applaud this leadership. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. Good luck in January, Mitt. As my father always told me, "The cream always rises to the top". I have confidence you will prevail. Scott Allan Labels: energy, huckabee, mitt romney, Taxes, terrorism Friday, October 5, 2007
FACT: Mayor Giuliani Fought To Tax People For Going To Work:
FACT: Mayor Giuliani Not Only Wanted To Keep The Tax, He Wanted To Raise It:
FACT: Mayor Giuliani Called The $360 Million A Year Commuter Tax "Modest," And Said The City Was "Entitled" To The Tax:
FACT: Mayor Giuliani Sued Republicans In Albany So He Could Keep The Commuter Tax:
FACT: After Losing In Court, Mayor Giuliani Continued To Fight To Keep The Commuter Tax:
Labels: rudy, rudy giuliani, tax cuts, Taxes | ||||||||||||||||||
Today, the Romney campaign came out swinging. In their first official Rudy exposé the Giuliani "tax and tax again" record is thrown into stark relief. The research is pretty extensive and makes an excellent case against the fiscal policy that Rudy advocated while Mayor.
Show/Hide 1 Comments | Post a Comment