Mitt Romney’s Stimulus Package
January 19th, 2008 at 06:58am Mark Noonan
Pretty good, if you ask me:
–To permanently cut in the lowest income tax bracket to 7.5 percent from 10 percent.
–To make that cut immediately retroactive to 2007 tax liabilities.
–To permanently eliminate Social Security payroll taxes for workers over 65.
–To provide 100 percent expensing of new equipment purchased by businesses over two years retroactive to Jan 1 2008.
–To permanently reduce the corporate tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent over two years.
–To permanently eliminate capital gains and dividends taxes on households earning under $200,000 a year, an idea he has previously proposed.
That is supply-side with some real teeth in it - but, also, with the reduction of the lowest bracket to 7.5%, he also gets to gather in a bit of populism at the same time. Very clever, and very good - as I’ve said in the past, Romney has excellent credentials for being President, and I’ll enthusiastically back him against the Democrats should he gain the GOP nomination…but, for now, I’m going to stick with Fred Thompson.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans
24 Comments
1. neocon | January 19th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Mark,
I like Fred myself, but there’s no comparison between he and Romney in terms of executive experience. Romney is an entrepreneur with a tremendous business acumen and an ability to get the best out of the people around him.
He is a pragmatist that will get things done on both domestic and foreign fronts by leading with courage, compassion, decency and intelligence. Also his executive experience and ability to articulate the issues will make any Democratic candidate pale in comparison and shrink in the debates.
I urge you to support Romney.
2. kjstrouble | January 19th, 2008 at 8:31 am
I too hope Fred pulls something out, or that the race remains in such disarray that he continues to have a chance. I say Thompson/Romney would make a great ticket. Of course, so would Romney/Thompson.
3. SEW | January 19th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Certainly Sunny, dian, and JOE, the world’s best economists will give us the downside to this proposal. MIGHT be harmful to seals, or MIGHT increase atmospheric CO2 levels and thus would be considered ANTHROPOGENIC. And last of all, this plan will also give more money to the already wealthy, thus unacceptable. And since the lower income folks don’t pay any tax, what’s in it for them? In fact many may be forced to get jobs!
4. neocon | January 19th, 2008 at 8:35 am
>>In fact many may be forced to get jobs! - SEW<<
God forbid. We can’t expect them to actually have to work, can we?
5. Mark Noonan | January 19th, 2008 at 9:27 am
neocon,
I will - if he gains the nomination…but in the early GOP primaries, I try to select the man with the best conservative qualities and ability to communicate them…for now, that is still Thompson.
6. Mitt Romney » Mitt &hellip | January 19th, 2008 at 9:55 am
[…] unknown wrote an interesting post today on Mitt Romney’s Stimulus PackageHere’s a quick excerptPretty good, if you ask me: –To permanently cut in the lowest income tax bracket to 7.5 percent from 10 percent. –To make that cut immediately retroactive to 2007 tax liabilities. –To permanently eliminate Social Security payroll … […]
7. Romney » Mitt Romne&hellip | January 19th, 2008 at 9:55 am
[…] unknown wrote an interesting post today on Mitt Romney’s Stimulus PackageHere’s a quick excerptPretty good, if you ask me: –To permanently cut in the lowest income tax bracket to 7.5 percent from 10 percent. –To make that cut immediately retroactive to 2007 tax liabilities. –To permanently eliminate Social Security payroll … […]
8. Brian (Boston) | January 19th, 2008 at 9:57 am
SEW, I am interested to find out why you believe that low income people don’t work.
Why not give the money to the middle and lower classes, who would actually spend the money?
9. Jeff Albertson | January 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
GIVE the money? There’s nothing in Romney’s plan about giving away money.
There should be, if a recession is to be avoided then the government has a responsibility to send the money it has back to the people and have them spend it, or the government should just spern it themselves and cut out the middle=man. But Romney’s plan seems to be a tax philosophy designed to stimulate the imagination of the base. No recession solution here.
10. Timothy Horrigan | January 19th, 2008 at 10:54 am
We are on the wrong of the Laffer Curve, Mitt! Cutting tax rates would only reduce overall tax revenues… and even if we actually want to reduce government spending, we still have to pay off Bush II’s huge debt. (The theory behind supply side is basically that tax cuts cause economic growth, and in some cases that growth is so large it actually leads to higher revenues.)
11. neocon | January 19th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Timothy,
Your ignorance is astounding. And your post is exactly what I mean by judging policies on results, not sentiment or theory.
Growth in Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 to 2006
Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. CBO’s analysis of that increase in revenues since
2003 is necessarily preliminary because relevant data are not yet fully available.
CBO examined the available data using the commonly employed method of
analyzing the sources of revenue growth as a percentage of GDP. Had revenues
grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006 federal
receipts would have increased by only $373 billion
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf
12. Rathaven | January 19th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Haven’t we been hearing that “wrong side of the Laffer Curve” for three years now? Yet revenues continue to expand.
The theory behnd supply side is that incentives are the surest way to economic growth; conversly disincentives (punitive taxes) are a sure way to acheive a liberal utopia of no producers and massive numbers of government addicted democrats.
13. OhioOrrin | January 19th, 2008 at 11:42 am
SPENDING CUTS!
BALANCED BUDGET!
MANY STATES DO IT…BY LAW!
jeeze, where are the actual fiscal conservatives?
14. neocon | January 19th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Ohio,
Do you not pay attention to Romney?
Balanced Budgets. Without raising taxes or increasing debt, Governor Romney closed a $3 billion budget deficit his first year in office with a heavily Democrat legislature. Each year, Governor Romney filed a balanced budget without raising taxes. By eliminating waste, streamlining government, and enacting comprehensive economic reforms to help spur growth, Governor Romney helped the state achieve a surplus totaling nearly $1 billion in 2005.
15. Fred Thompson » Mit&hellip | January 19th, 2008 at 11:58 am
[…] Right Pundits wrote an interesting post today on Mitt Romney’s Stimulus PackageHere’s a quick excerpt…enthusiastically back him against the Democrats should he gain the GOP nomination…but, for now, I’m going to stick with Fred Thompson. […]
16. TiredofLibBullShit | January 19th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I love the typical liberal view - the government will GIVE money to ……
Their typical belief that the it’s the government’s money. Both Clinton’s and Obama’s plan gave (yes, GAVE from those who actually pay federal taxes to those who pay little or no federal taxes, in other words - to voters who are most likely to vote Democrat).
To libs who like to continuously bitch about the defecit and the debt (notice they only complain when money is spent on something they don’t like but pad bills with earmarks), the era of the free ride is over. The libs ran on the largess of the Republicans, but did not balk when they had control once again.
People need to get off their keysters and get a freakin’ job. There are jobs out there, just look at the classifieds. But when an individual can make more sitting on his/her duff, where is the drive to go to work? Couple their gov’t assistance with work would be a good start, that way they are contributing to the good of society (another slogan libs love to use only when it applies to someone else).
Yes, I like to receive rebates from confiscatory taxes. Has any actually calculated the taxes they actually pay each year. Using Quicken, I entered every receipt and bill, itemizing all taxes and fees (at the time I did not pay property tax) and the total came to 38% of my income. This included any tax refunds (if any) I received!
38%!!!!!!!! and libs claim we don’t pay enough in taxes!!! Oh, this is for a family of 4 with one income. I am far from what is considered rich.
We need to get away from the income taxes all together and move to a consumption tax. That way all income levels will be taxed, no matter what. Those who presently hide their income or are “off the grid” will be contributing. A good consumption plan will make allowances for the typical cost of living for all family sizes. This will also eliminate tax costs that are imbedded in the prices of all goods and services. This will of course reduce the need for the IRS (which costs abillions of dollars anually), and we all know what will happen. After all, the IRS is a jobs program as well.
17. Brian (Boston) | January 19th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
TiredofLibBullShit, Ok, let me rephrase the the sentence. Why not give the tax break to the people that are going to spend it in America, the middle and lower classes?
And where are these lazy people in the lower class that won’t get off their arses to work? I know there are a few, but is there any information that this is a large portion of the people in the lower class?
I make 6 figures and I just did my 2007 tax returns. I wound up paying a little less than 30% total. This includes Federal, State, SS, Medicare and dividends.
18. keefer | January 20th, 2008 at 8:31 am
jeeze, where are the actual fiscal conservatives?
Their names are Clinton and Obama…not!
Actually, they died, along with the line-item veto. As long as there’s pork, there’ll be no fiscal conservatism
19. TiredofLibBullShit | January 20th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Brian,
I itemized and totaled ALL taxes - fuel (gasoline), communications (telephone & cable), utility (water & natural gas), all federal income taxes etc. etc.. Most of this information was broken down on receipts and bills and using Quicken made it easy.
But as I said earlier, I counted ALL taxes inflicted on us. Track those taxes you pay, it will be an eye opener.
20. Ames Tiedeman | January 20th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Here is what we, the GOP folks, have done to the U.S. Economy since 1980:
In 1980 our entire national debt was 832 billion.
In 1980 our yearly trade deficit was -19 Billion.
In 2008 here is how bad it has gotten:
A. Our national debt is now 9 Trillion
B. Our annual trade deficit is now -800 Billion.
Folks, I love Reagan more than anyone, but something is wrong. It did not work.
We have not had a trade surpus with the world since 1974. We have not had a trade surplus with Japan since April, 1976.
Do you think a $250.00 tax cut is the answer? Folks, we need industrial output. Not tax cuts!
What say you?
Regards,
Ames Tiedeman
21. Ali A. Akbar | January 20th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Mitt Romney even called his plan ‘not a stimulus’ plan…. unless you just call it ‘media stimulus’
22. Accounting Financial Fina&hellip | February 11th, 2008 at 4:06 am
Accounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
23. Capital Gains And Dividen&hellip | February 22nd, 2008 at 3:25 am
1031 Exchanges - The Legal Way To Defer Investment Property Capital Gains Tax
With the booming property prices of recent years, more and more people are finding themselves facing a large tax bill when they come to sell their investment properties. However, did you realize that there is a perfectly legal way of deferring payment …
24. pictures of hilary duff&hellip | March 10th, 2008 at 3:22 am
pictures of hilary duff
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..