"Republicans" Explain Romney's plan to a liberal

I'm a small businessman in a niche market. We grew pretty well under Obama. When business is growing the tax rate isn't what I'm thinking about, it's struggling to find reliable, educated employees. They are expensive, Ph.D. and Masters-level positions not minimum wage jobs. It's going to cost me a lot more than what I'd save in tax breaks if I can't find those people. This is the new American economy, not manufacturing of low-cost items in countries with low ages and minimal to zero safety and regulatory oversight. 

I think the reducing the tax rates on all middle class (which includes many small businesses) is the approach.  The business owner making $200k or so would benefit by the lowered tax rate, but would also benefit by having more sales because everyone has more money to spend.  If I own a store that sells flowers there will be more people buying flowers on the way home because they have more money.  Therefore the net effect is I hire more people by the combined benefit of having lower taxes and increased revenue.

The funny part about the 12 Million Jobs number is that it's such a lowball number that even if Romney does absolutely nothing (or loses) the economy will likely add that many jobs organically.  Obama didn't do a very good job of pointing that out to the country.

Economists: Romney's 12 Million Jobs Target Realistic, Even If He Loses

This is the part that I don't get.  He's going to cut taxes by 20% while reducing the deficit at the same time.  He claims that he can do this by closing a bunch of currently unspecified loopholes and eliminating a bunch of currently unspecified exemptions.  So....he's going to reduce the tax rate, but make people pay taxes in more ways, so the total tax paid is not only the same as before, it's more than it was.  Then what's the point of reducing the tax rate in the first place?!?!

I can't help but come up with my own cynical answer: the uniformed masses will only pay attention to "Romney cut taxes" and ignore the fact that their home mortgage deduction, state income tax deduction, etc, have all disappeared.

I think what he was saying is if the tax cuts are revenue neutral as Romney has said, how will that stimulate growth since they won't be a "cut"?

Not true if you count on stimulationg growth.  It is still a rate cut, you just have more income to pay that rate on.  More income to pay the rate on leaves still more income in your pocket.

But if the cuts are revenue neutral, there is no cut. So you are still paying the same amount. The cut is supposed to encourage the growth, but if it's not a cut, because it's cancelled out by other tax increases (removing deductions), where does the growth come from?

The growth comes from the fact that not everyone is getting those loopholes so a larger portion of people are getting a tax cut which will spur growth which will in turn increase revenue.

I will explain Romney's plan to you if you can explain Obama's plan for anything in the next term to me. 

Don't even type JoshR.  I tried looking for Gary Johnson's plan and it's so undefined that I paste it below:

"Americans are more concerned than ever before about the future of our economy, and those concerns are well-founded.  As a nation, we simply can't afford to continue borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar we spend.  Balancing the budget will mean making some serious changes in Washington, but these will be the corrections America needs to remain a free, prosperous, and secure nation."

Now back to the JFK tax cuts Oooh and lets not forget the Regan tax cuts.

Is there a limit sure but to discount the theory all together just because it doesn't jibe with your world view is just as bad.

You can't stop me! Here is a handy site for seeing how all of the candidates stand on the issues based off their quotes. Gary Johnson's plan is to cut spending by 43%. 

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

where does this not make sense to you?  I am far from wealthy but I know some people that are doing pretty well.  My SIL, an MD and hospital director does very well.  We have had this conversation many times...she has grown her business...the more money she brings in the more people she will have on staff.  If she pays less in taxes that might help bring in a FT employee or two.  I don't see why people don't understand this concept.

As far as Romney's plan; I have questions about it.  However; I have confidence in him as a leadeer.  He has proven he can lead, has managed businesses, people, budgets.  On the other hand, we have a former community organizer that has failed at kick starting the economy. 

Not to mention, he supports the Fair Tax, which would eliminate the income tax and payroll tax and replace it with a national sales tax.  That would lower the tax burden on the rich (yay, trickle down ecomonics!), and get Romney's 47% to start paying their "fair share".

I don't think the economic situations are even remotely the same now as they were in 1980. We aren't facing historically high interest rates, but just the opposite, historically low interest rates. Art Laffer says in the article we just went through a 25 year boom period, but this period was fueled by debt. Now we are reaping the repercussions of a 25 year debt binge. 

Having said that, I would prefer Reagan over either of the two candidates we have now, but he'd never be able to win the GOP nomination today.

Clipped.

I agree that Obama's plan won't work. I don't think Romney's will either. We as a country have been loading up on far too much debt for 25 years. We need to deleverage now. This takes a long time. This is why the recovery is so slow. Unfortunately, we are not deleveraging as much as we should and I think we are just heading right back into another recession, regardless of who is president. 

Didn't you bring any popcorn?