Mitt Romney announces potential 2016 presidential run

[Insaeldor]

Definetly one of the better Republican candidates. If he gets the candidacy I just might still vote third party this upcoming election.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

The question isn't why it should be lowered; the question is why shouldn't it be lowered? I've heard few legitimate arguments against it aside from emotional/populist charges that the rich are rich enough or should keep less of their money. Cutting taxes obviously leads to faster growth and numerous economic benefits, so why shouldn't the top rate be lowered, especially since revenues will likely not change by much? Of course, I'd argue for cutting taxes for lower incomes first, since incomes under $100,000 make up 5% of income tax revenues, but lowering the top rate wouldn't hurt.

Because, excessive income inequality is bad. Furthermore, I try to stay away from the populist arguments, and look at the top income tax from a pragmatic standpoint.

Benign income inequality, that results from voluntary exchange, is not bad at all. I mean, "income inequality" is very much a relative value; it's no measure of absolute prosperity, which is why I find it ridiculous when people complain about it. The only bad forms of income inequality come from the state when it enriches a few at the expense of everybody else, such as through the Fed's quantitative easing programs, and racial income inequality, which is a big but frequently overlooked problem in America today.

If we want to lift people out of poverty, or help those in poverty, we'll have a tough time doing so without being able to fund welfare programs and the like properly.

Wrong - it's economic growth that helps the poor, not government fiat. This is one of the studies I sent you. The World Bank found that 75% of the income gains accrued to the bottom 40% of income earners over the past thirty years are a result of economic growth. Literature reviews on the subject have more or less confirmed this finding.

The American welfare state has a notorious track record of suppressing the poor and keeping them in poverty. A system of brutal means-testing incentivises poor people to stay on welfare, as getting a job could mean the elimination of a large chunk of their benefits. Several other malincentives exist in the system. It's why poverty, which had been decreasing rapidly through the 40s, 50s and early-to-mid-60s, stopped going down in the late 1960s, along with the collapse of Bretton Woods and stagflation (which more or less confirms that a good economy takes people out of poverty, not government). It was 12% in 1970, and 15.2% in 1983. Then, following two decades of welfare cuts under Reagan and Clinton (US federal domestic spending as a percentage of GDP declined from 14% to 12%, although this includes hundreds of other non-welfare programs) and economic prosperity, the poverty rate declined from 15.2% to 11.3% in 2000.

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying things, but despite the American example, the facts tell us that the only thing that lifts the poor out of poverty is a job. Welfare can help, but I've seen little evidence that it's effective in the long term. If we want to help the poor then we should be freeing markets and fostering liberty.

And another thing, cutting the top tax rate would have no impact on revenues. Basic economic theory and the data both tell us this.

[Homo Sapiens Texius]

I joke about this but then am upset that he leads in about half the republican polls.

Then I fell less depressed as the alternative is Bush the Third.

Better than Clinton II.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

The question isn't why it should be lowered; the question is why shouldn't it be lowered? I've heard few legitimate arguments against it aside from emotional/populist charges that the rich are rich enough or should keep less of their money. Cutting taxes obviously leads to faster growth and numerous economic benefits, so why shouldn't the top rate be lowered, especially since revenues will likely not change by much? Of course, I'd argue for cutting taxes for lower incomes first, since incomes under $100,000 make up 5% of income tax revenues, but lowering the top rate wouldn't hurt.

Tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous, they have more money than they know how to spend

Uggh. It's none of your damn business how somebody else spends their own money. Money saved by "the rich" is in fact money invested, since any real-world banking system converts savings into loans to individuals and businesses. It's basic microeconomics.

chances are if you raised taxes they wouldn't spend less than they already do. But don't take my word for it, take a primarily conservative media piece http://www.forbes.com/sites/billharris/ ... eate-jobs/

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-ta ... wth-2012-9

I'd say that the rich are least affected by the tax code either way. For example, from 1945 to 1981 the average effective top tax rate was never higher than 30%, which it only hit once in 1980. Why was this so, in an era of 70% top tax rates? Because the rich are rich, so they can afford to get around taxes by hiring accountants to legally avoid taxes. This is why cuts to middle and lower incomes probably have a greater effect. But nevertheless, any kind of non-distortionary tax cut is a good one, so we should do it not just for the poor but for everyone.

I say, let's just have a non-deductible 10% flat tax for all incomes above $200,000, and 0% for everybody else.

You're not seriously arguing that tax cuts don't stimulate growth? To do so would be an utterly stupid point rejected both by common sense and the vast majority of economists. To reject the benefits of tax cuts is economic denialism practised only by Marxists and "liberals", who have successfully co-opted the worst ideas from all economic schools to fit an agenda that can be described as nothing less than blind submission to the state.

[Imyoji]

Not the best choice but please for the love of everything truthful and sane (HAH!) please let him be more popular than the other Republicans.

[Ripoll]

Tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous, they have more money than they know how to spend

Uggh. It's none of your damn business how somebody else spends their own money. Money saved by "the rich" is in fact money invested, since any real-world banking system converts savings into loans to individuals and businesses. It's basic microeconomics.

chances are if you raised taxes they wouldn't spend less than they already do. But don't take my word for it, take a primarily conservative media piece http://www.forbes.com/sites/billharris/ ... eate-jobs/

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-ta ... wth-2012-9

I'd say that the rich are least affected by the tax code either way. For example, from 1945 to 1981 the average effective top tax rate was never higher than 30%, which it only hit once in 1980. Why was this so, in an era of 70% top tax rates? Because the rich are rich, so they can afford to get around taxes by hiring accountants to legally avoid taxes. This is why cuts to middle and lower incomes probably have a greater effect. But nevertheless, any kind of non-distortionary tax cut is a good one, so we should do it not just for the poor but for everyone.

I say, let's just have a non-deductible 10% flat tax for all incomes above $200,000, and 0% for everybody else.

You're not seriously arguing that tax cuts don't stimulate growth? To do so would be an utterly stupid point rejected both by common sense and the vast majority of economists. To reject the benefits of tax cuts is economic denialism practised only by Marxists and "liberals", who have successfully co-opted the worst ideas from all economic schools to fit an agenda that can be described as nothing less than blind submission to the state.

Yea, Forbes is definitely a liberal source, so is business insider.

Any ways, besides the founder of capitalism disagreeing with you

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

No, when someone sticks money in their mattress that's not an "investment" nor when they go to the bank and have it stored in a vault that cannot be legally used for investments within the bank. Lower taxes increases growth, up to a point. Just like anything else, and economists acknowledge this. To deny this is complete ignorance and over simplification of a system you don't understand.

Unfortunately respected economists aren't as conservative as you'd think, actually a very small minority of them are. Almost every economist was for TARP, Quantitative Easing, Stimulus, etc. And if they didn't agree with the specific policy they still wished to have some form of it implemented. They are also credited with preventing the collapse of the global financial system.

Can you actually get a source that says the Bush Tax cuts effectively stimulated the economy?

[The Black Forrest]

Are we talking about Mitt or Libertarian/Austrian/whatever economic theory?

[Othelos]

There is a potential announcement that Mitt Romney could potentially announce a potential run for presidency?

[Ashmoria]

There is a potential announcement that Mitt Romney could potentially announce a potential run for presidency?

yeah but when the former nominee tells a room full of donors that he is considering running again it means that he WILL run if they donate money to him.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Mitt

Libertarian

Please don't use those two words together

[MERIZoC]

Mitt

Libertarian

Please don't use those two words together

…Because in the same post=together? Did you actually read what he said?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Please don't use those two words together

…Because in the same post=together? Did you actually read what he said?

'twas a joke.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Uggh. It's none of your damn business how somebody else spends their own money. Money saved by "the rich" is in fact money invested, since any real-world banking system converts savings into loans to individuals and businesses. It's basic microeconomics.


I'd say that the rich are least affected by the tax code either way. For example, from 1945 to 1981 the average effective top tax rate was never higher than 30%, which it only hit once in 1980. Why was this so, in an era of 70% top tax rates? Because the rich are rich, so they can afford to get around taxes by hiring accountants to legally avoid taxes. This is why cuts to middle and lower incomes probably have a greater effect. But nevertheless, any kind of non-distortionary tax cut is a good one, so we should do it not just for the poor but for everyone.

I say, let's just have a non-deductible 10% flat tax for all incomes above $200,000, and 0% for everybody else.

You're not seriously arguing that tax cuts don't stimulate growth? To do so would be an utterly stupid point rejected both by common sense and the vast majority of economists. To reject the benefits of tax cuts is economic denialism practised only by Marxists and "liberals", who have successfully co-opted the worst ideas from all economic schools to fit an agenda that can be described as nothing less than blind submission to the state.

Yea, Forbes is definitely a liberal source, so is business insider.

Yes, Business Insider is a "liberal" source. There are dozens of contributors on Forbes of diverse political beliefs. Posting something on a glorified blog is entirely different from scoring a spot on the editorial page. Saying "that mostly right-wing magazine posted one left-wing thing. See! PROOF that leftism is true!" doesn't wash with me.

Any ways, besides the founder of capitalism disagreeing with you

What point are you trying to prove here? That just because Adam Smith believed in progressive taxation, so should I? Smith also believed in the ridiculous labour theory of value. Don't get me wrong, he was brilliant, but everyone makes mistakes.

No, when someone sticks money in their mattress that's not an "investment" nor when they go to the bank and have it stored in a vault that cannot be legally used for investments within the bank.

What in God's name are you talking about? Have you ever even used a bank? It's not putting money under a mattress. Saving is both delayed consumption and indirect investment. Where the hell do you think banks get the money to make loans from?

Lower taxes increases growth, up to a point. Just like anything else, and economists acknowledge this. To deny this is complete ignorance and over simplification of a system you don't understand.

I am a very reasonable man and have been open to changing my mind on several issues since becoming a libertarian. The Federal Reserve, the anatomy of the state, tragedy of the commons, and so forth. But you will never, ever, ever convince me that cutting taxes is bad for growth, because it is simply utterly false. Almost every real economist (and don't bring up Paul Krugman - he is a glorified pundit, not an economist) recognises that tax cuts do indeed stimulate growth. To suggest otherwise is economic denialism. You can make a case for stimulus spending, or nationalisation, or lowering interest rates or whatever, but whenever somebody suggests that taxes are somehow good for the economy they immediately lose my attention. It is just simply not true. Dozens of literature reviews have confirmed this, if it ever needed to be. One (that I will link tomorrow) found that in the US, 63% of economic studies found that tax cuts were growth-positive, while only 3% found they were growth-negative. The funny thing is that this is an idea that lives entirely within the social-democratic bubble of thought to justify the expansion of the state and the reduction of the individual. Even Keynesians, who are often naively assumed to be a purely tax-and-spend school of thought, recognise the benefits of tax cuts. Christina and David Romer, who worked on the stimulus plan and infamously advocated a multi-trillion dollar cash infusion into the economy, found that "a tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers GDP by about 3 percent."

But this scarcely needs to be stated. To argue that reducing the amount of capital robbed from individuals stimulates higher consumption, saving and investment is like arguing that an increase in supply leads to a decrease in demand, or that gravity causes apples to fall off of trees.

Unfortunately respected economists aren't as conservative as you'd think, actually a very small minority of them are. Almost every economist was for TARP, Quantitative Easing, Stimulus, etc. And if they didn't agree with the specific policy they still wished to have some form of it implemented. They are also credited with preventing the collapse of the global financial system.

We're not talking about those things, we're talking about taxes.

Can you actually get a source that says the Bush Tax cuts effectively stimulated the economy?

There are probably more than a few decent ones out there, but I'm a little short on time right now. The Bush Tax Cuts were alright, but were more than offset by his loose monetary policies, enormous levels of spending and Middle Eastern warfare that kept investor confidence low and sapped capital from the private sector. The explosion in regulations/corporate welfare did not help either. The Bush Tax Cuts, in other words, were swamped in a sea of bad economic policies.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I think Rand Paul has better chances than Mitt Romney but to be fair the media will not likely give rand the opportunity by spreading lies about Rand just like in 2012 with Ron Paul.

What lies were these?

[Nord Amour]

There is a potential announcement that Mitt Romney could potentially announce a potential run for presidency?

Potentially.

[Ripoll]

Yea, Forbes is definitely a liberal source, so is business insider.

Yes, Business Insider is a "liberal" source. There are dozens of contributors on Forbes of diverse political beliefs. Posting something on a glorified blog is entirely different from scoring a spot on the editorial page. Saying "that mostly right-wing magazine posted one left-wing thing. See! PROOF that leftism is true!" doesn't wash with me.

Any ways, besides the founder of capitalism disagreeing with you

What point are you trying to prove here? That just because Adam Smith believed in progressive taxation, so should I? Smith also believed in the ridiculous labour theory of value. Don't get me wrong, he was brilliant, but everyone makes mistakes.

No, when someone sticks money in their mattress that's not an "investment" nor when they go to the bank and have it stored in a vault that cannot be legally used for investments within the bank.

What in God's name are you talking about? Have you ever even used a bank? It's not putting money under a mattress. Saving is both delayed consumption and indirect investment. Where the hell do you think banks get the money to make loans from?

Lower taxes increases growth, up to a point. Just like anything else, and economists acknowledge this. To deny this is complete ignorance and over simplification of a system you don't understand.

I am a very reasonable man and have been open to changing my mind on several issues since becoming a libertarian. The Federal Reserve, the anatomy of the state, tragedy of the commons, and so forth. But you will never, ever, ever convince me that cutting taxes is bad for growth, because it is simply utterly false. Almost every real economist (and don't bring up Paul Krugman - he is a glorified pundit, not an economist) recognises that tax cuts do indeed stimulate growth. To suggest otherwise is economic denialism. You can make a case for stimulus spending, or nationalisation, or lowering interest rates or whatever, but whenever somebody suggests that taxes are somehow good for the economy they immediately lose my attention. It is just simply not true. Dozens of literature reviews have confirmed this, if it ever needed to be. One (that I will link tomorrow) found that in the US, 63% of economic studies found that tax cuts were growth-positive, while only 3% found they were growth-negative. The funny thing is that this is an idea that lives entirely within the social-democratic bubble of thought to justify the expansion of the state and the reduction of the individual. Even Keynesians, who are often naively assumed to be a purely tax-and-spend school of thought, recognise the benefits of tax cuts. Christina and David Romer, who worked on the stimulus plan and infamously advocated a multi-trillion dollar cash infusion into the economy, found that "a tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers GDP by about 3 percent."

But this scarcely needs to be stated. To argue that reducing the amount of capital robbed from individuals stimulates higher consumption, saving and investment is like arguing that an increase in supply leads to a decrease in demand, or that gravity causes apples to fall off of trees.

Unfortunately respected economists aren't as conservative as you'd think, actually a very small minority of them are. Almost every economist was for TARP, Quantitative Easing, Stimulus, etc. And if they didn't agree with the specific policy they still wished to have some form of it implemented. They are also credited with preventing the collapse of the global financial system.

We're not talking about those things, we're talking about taxes.

Can you actually get a source that says the Bush Tax cuts effectively stimulated the economy?

There are probably more than a few decent ones out there, but I'm a little short on time right now. The Bush Tax Cuts were alright, but were more than offset by his loose monetary policies, enormous levels of spending and Middle Eastern warfare that kept investor confidence low and sapped capital from the private sector. The explosion in regulations/corporate welfare did not help either. The Bush Tax Cuts, in other words, were swamped in a sea of bad economic policies.

No, I meant literally putting money under your mattress, and in the other context using a bank vault or deposit boxes. Low taxes are great, but I believe it's who get's taxed we really have to look at and I'm completely against a flat tax rate that would be atrocious. This isn't an argument of leftism, this is economic pragmatism. A flat tax rate would more than likely higher the taxes all across the board which first of all is not fair, and squeezes the already squeezed middle class.

Taxes were already very low before the tax cuts.

Swamped in a Sea of bad economic policies? I'm not a fan of Bush politically (I did think he was one of our chillest presidents though) but after 2008 the Fed, Bush Administration, and the IMF responded perfectly to the crisis. Lowering taxes doesn't fix an economy on the verge of financial ruin, it needs to be accompanied with printing money, loaning, and increased infrastructure spending.

I wouldn't agree with completely ending the bush tax cuts, only allowing the tax cuts to end for those making 250,000 or over. Why/ Because it gets to the point where someone's income is soo high tax increases wouldn't really have an effect on their consuming habits, and individuals don't really create jobs corporations do and in that case I am heavily in favor of lowering corporate taxes.

We have enough incentives already, and the market has enough incentives to keep consumers consuming.

I also have no idea what you mean by the "explosion" of regulation. I hope you can clear that up a bit.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

No, I meant literally putting money under your mattress, and in the other context using a bank vault or deposit boxes.

Oh, I see. Yes, storing money in such a way isn't helpful to the economy. But thankfully, the nature of interest rates and modern banking systems means that there is never any real incentive to do such a thing, unless one is a criminal.

Low taxes are great, but I believe it's who get's taxed we really have to look at and I'm completely against a flat tax rate that would be atrocious. This isn't an argument of leftism, this is economic pragmatism. A flat tax rate would more than likely higher the taxes all across the board which first of all is not fair, and squeezes the already squeezed middle class.

I've begun to care less and less for labels such as "flat," "progressive", and "regressive". They are extremely misleading as they are relative, and so do not indicate any absolute values. For example, would a flat tax of 1% really be worse for poor people/the middle class than a government that taxed the rich at 100% and everybody else at 80%?

Basically, it all depends on the rates.

Taxes were already very low before the tax cuts.

Low relative to what?

Swamped in a Sea of bad economic policies? I'm not a fan of Bush politically (I did think he was one of our chillest presidents though) but after 2008 the Fed, Bush Administration, and the IMF responded perfectly to the crisis.

I disagree. The bailouts just taught big business that every time the government helps them feck up, they can come back to the taxpayer for assistance. The home-owners should have been directly bailed out. QE is probably propping up another bubble and has done very little to help the economy except enrich Wall Street. The income inequality caused by these policies certainly is bad, because inflating the currency is an upward redistribution of wealth.

Lowering taxes doesn't fix an economy on the verge of financial ruin,

I suppose so, since most recessions are caused by bad monetary policy. The best time for marginal rate tax cuts is during or in the aftermath of a recession to spur growth alongside stable monetary policies.

it needs to be accompanied with printing money, loaning,

Excessively loose-dollar policies have a habit of creating credit bubbles out of misallocated resources, which inevitably pop and unload the surplus on the market - leading to a crash.

and increased infrastructure spending.

Infrastructure spending helps the economy in the long run, but would not have stopped the recession in 2008.

I wouldn't agree with completely ending the bush tax cuts, only allowing the tax cuts to end for those making 250,000 or over. Why/ Because it gets to the point where someone's income is soo high tax increases wouldn't really have an effect on their consuming habits,

If loopholes are not tightened, then this is in some ways quite true. But a tax is still a tax, and with most of the evidence pointing to the fact that little new revenue comes from tax increases, there seems to be no visible benefit or gain in raising rates.

and individuals don't really create jobs corporations do

It's a two-way street. Individuals provide the demand, corporations provide the supply. Both are reliant on the other.

and in that case I am heavily in favor of lowering corporate taxes.

Good. This should be a no-brainer for liberals and conservatives alike. It would raise wages, bring jobs back from overseas and probably in the long run result in higher revenues. One study found that the lowest revenue-neutral rate, in the short run, that the top CTR could be cut to is 9%. It's an extremely distortionary and economically harmful tax that should be abolished.

We have enough incentives already, and the market has enough incentives to keep consumers consuming.

What do you mean?

I also have no idea what you mean by the "explosion" of regulation. I hope you can clear that up a bit.

Here: http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/10/b ... y-kiss-off
Regulatory growth by presidential term: http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files ... dget_0.pdf


Ironically, Republicans have been responsible for much of the growth in federal regulation that they so often complain about.

[Valica]

Son of a bitch. Can't this motherfucker take a hint after two losses?

We don't want some racist 1%-er as president.
This motherfucker would probably abolish taxes for his buddies and demolish the middle class.

[The Emerald Dawn]

What poor bastard is going to be his running mate this time?

[Liberty and Linguistics]

Son of a bitch. Can't this motherfucker take a hint after two losses?

We don't want some racist 1%-er as president.
This motherfucker would probably abolish taxes for his buddies and demolish the middle class.

While I'm no fan of Romney, this post is fallacious, dishonest, and blatantly untrue. Do you really believe that Romney would have the desire, or the ability to abolish taxes? And, in what way is he racist? Finally, just about every president in the last few decades are from the "1%." I'd also like to point out that the "1%" is just a populist buzzword. Romney is pretty shitty, but you should critique him on his policies and track record, instead of this bulllshit.

[Valica]

What poor bastard is going to be his running mate this time?

Plot-twist: Joe Biden switches parties, chosen as VP again.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

What poor bastard is going to be his running mate this time?

Mitt Romney/Bernie Sanders, because I love contradictions.

[Valica]

Mitt Romney/Bernie Sanders, because I love contradictions.

I want Sanders for president in 2016... but the chances of him stepping away from the independent label and going with the democrats are slim to none.

[The Emerald Dawn]

What poor bastard is going to be his running mate this time?

Plot-twist: Joe Biden switches parties, chosen as VP again.

Double-plot-twist: He stops playing "favorite Uncle" and goes straight Literature Professor.

[Southern Hampshire]

Son of a bitch. Can't this motherfucker take a hint after two losses?

We don't want some racist 1%-er as president.
This motherfucker would probably abolish taxes for his buddies and demolish the middle class.

Demolishing the middle class" is an extremely hypocritical statement when said while Obama is in office.