October 3rd Presidential Debate

[winex]

Only vote if you watched it.

 

[cubiczirconia]

It could have been interesting if Obama had done his homework and taken some notes, and interest.

 

[socal78]

Here is a link to the entire first round, for those like me who had to miss it yesterday.

October 3rd Presidential Debate

 

[cubiczirconia]

Liberal or conservative, I think the middle class will pay up- whether we build another Lehman, or a Compton will depend on who we choose.

Last night's debate, a borrowed view:

 

[cubiczirconia]

It could have been interesting if Obama had done his homework and taken some notes, and interest.

the challenger usually wins the first debate b/c the president has to spend the whole time defending his record.... but yea I agree - Obama was looking a bit lackluster last night.  It was interesting to see how the various groups of people in my life viewed the debate.  My twitter feed was very liberal while my facebook friends were split mainly geographically (OC versus NYC).

Before the debate, Mrs. O said she was nervous and and Mrs. R was very confident- guess they know how well their husbands were prepared?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I think Romney won not because of what he said or did, it was more that he was aggressive and looked like he knew what he was talking about.  I think the moderator did Obama a great disservice because he allowed Romney to really take over the debate and deferred to Romney a lot.  It looked like Obama was trying to be cordial and allow the debate process to go forward but it wasn't really a debate.

I was really annoyed that Obama didn't hit back harder.  There were so many things that Romney said that were misrepresentations or errors that Obama should have called him on. 

 

[changm55]

i usually lean towards the more business and fiscal conservative candidate regardless of competence or whether or not i like the look of a candidate (romney did surprise me as he seemed a lot more competent then when he was in the GOP debates earlier this year, but im weary of good orators because thats obama v. mccain all over again with obama08 sounding like he knew what he was talking about but whos platforms actually did not add up fiscally), but with that said even after the debate im still torn between the two...

romneys business conservative platform to spur the economy by cutting taxes to fill the economic hole created by housing appeals to me more then obamas method of filling the same hole with government money... so my vote goes to romney on this one

but romneys fiscal platform doesnt add up to me because cutting taxes will still not cause economic growth at the level needed to come out fiscally balanced... obama is correct that the arithmetic doesnt add up, so on the fiscal issue its a toss up between the two... that is until romney made a side comment on his military platform and how he will not cut anything at all from our military spending... realistically at least a few percent of military spending needs to be cut each year to remain fiscal even if we assume we are doing a fantastic job balancing entitlement... so this tipped the iceberg for me in obamas favor and my vote goes to obama...

which leaves me undecided and still waiting on the next debate on how either of romney or obamas other platforms (social/foreign policy) will touch upon and/or effect their fiscal/business platforms =_=;; sigh...

 

[winex]

One thing that I wish Romney would have said, and that I hope Ryan will touch upon next Thursday is the impact of tax simplification on the economy.  Though I would love for Obama's rumored $5 trillion in tax cuts that Romney plans to be true, what would happen if a combination of lower rates EXACTLY offset by elimination of ALL deductions/loopholes/whatever were to take place and we had a flat tax.

Currently the US economy spends $300 billion a year on tax compliance.

That is an obscene amount of money, and an equally obscene number of hours are spent keeping up with a taxcode that is far too broad for anyone to wrap their arms around.  Simplifying taxes has the potential of returning $300 billion to the economy every single year without "costing" the government a cent.

What would the economic impact of something like that be?

Then consider all the misinvestment of resources motivated by taking advantage of a tax code that spans 73,608 pages ( sourcehttp://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2012/04/2012-how-many-pages-are-there-in-us-tax.html)

Tax simplification could be the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[winex]

I think Romney won not because of what he said or did, it was more that he was aggressive and looked like he knew what he was talking about.  I think the moderator did Obama a great disservice because he allowed Romney to really take over the debate and deferred to Romney a lot.  It looked like Obama was trying to be cordial and allow the debate process to go forward but it wasn't really a debate.

I was really annoyed that Obama didn't hit back harder.  There were so many things that Romney said that were misrepresentations or errors that Obama should have called him on.

For the record, Obama spoke for about 4 1/2 minutes longer than Romney did during the debate.

 

[winex]

Here is a link to the entire first round, for those like me who had to miss it yesterday.

October 3rd Presidential Debate

Well since it is my poll, I make the rules.  You can still vote.  But do yourself a favor and watch the link you posted.  Personally I would rather have Santorum facing Obama right now, but Romney did well.

 

[winex]

It could have been interesting if Obama had done his homework and taken some notes, and interest.

This is going to sound controversial because he is the President of the United States, but long before last night I have been saying that he is a slacker.  The press fawns over him, but that's simply because he is a socialist.  He is nothing but an empty suit.

 

[changm55]

One thing that I wish Romney would have said, and that I hope Ryan will touch upon next Thursday is the impact of tax simplification on the economy.  Though I would love for Obama's rumored $5 trillion in tax cuts that Romney plans to be true, what would happen if a combination of lower rates EXACTLY offset by elimination of ALL deductions/loopholes/whatever were to take place and we had a flat tax.

Currently the US economy spends $300 billion a year on tax compliance.

That is an obscene amount of money, and an equally obscene number of hours are spent keeping up with a taxcode that is far too broad for anyone to wrap their arms around.  Simplifying taxes has the potential of returning $300 billion to the economy every single year without "costing" the government a cent.

What would the economic impact of something like that be?

Then consider all the misinvestment of resources motivated by taking advantage of a tax code that spans 73,608 pages ( sourcehttp://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2012/04/2012-how-many-pages-are-there-in-us-tax.html)

Tax simplification could be the gift that keeps on giving.

im a proponent of flat tax too and would also love to see a Singaporean flat tax here with 1/10 of our citizenry being millionaires...

unfortunately, romneys fiscal plan only works when growth is combined with a lower rate offset by deductions... if u take any of the 3 out of the equation, it will still show a deficit ... romney knows this quite well so he made a point to emphasize there has to be growth so more ppl are taxed after obama first brought up the 5billion hole... no stellar growth, but lower rates and deductions will still cause a deficit... flat tax wont help either, cause the top 15% tier of tax payers pay for about 60% of our government spending (too heavily skewed as it is, therefore the gov would be losing major money at this point)... in order to have a flat tax, our luxory tax and sales tax would have to make up for the deficit (im actually fine with this since i rarely spend more than i need, but i think most ppl will probably be against it, since we do have a consumerist culture)

 

[usctrojancpa]

One thing that I wish Romney would have said, and that I hope Ryan will touch upon next Thursday is the impact of tax simplification on the economy.  Though I would love for Obama's rumored $5 trillion in tax cuts that Romney plans to be true, what would happen if a combination of lower rates EXACTLY offset by elimination of ALL deductions/loopholes/whatever were to take place and we had a flat tax.

Currently the US economy spends $300 billion a year on tax compliance.

That is an obscene amount of money, and an equally obscene number of hours are spent keeping up with a taxcode that is far too broad for anyone to wrap their arms around.  Simplifying taxes has the potential of returning $300 billion to the economy every single year without "costing" the government a cent.

What would the economic impact of something like that be?

Then consider all the misinvestment of resources motivated by taking advantage of a tax code that spans 73,608 pages ( sourcehttp://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2012/04/2012-how-many-pages-are-there-in-us-tax.html)

Tax simplification could be the gift that keeps on giving.

The only bad thing is that it would cost many CPAs/EAs their jobs. 

 

[usctrojancpa]

One thing that I wish Romney would have said, and that I hope Ryan will touch upon next Thursday is the impact of tax simplification on the economy.  Though I would love for Obama's rumored $5 trillion in tax cuts that Romney plans to be true, what would happen if a combination of lower rates EXACTLY offset by elimination of ALL deductions/loopholes/whatever were to take place and we had a flat tax.

Currently the US economy spends $300 billion a year on tax compliance.

That is an obscene amount of money, and an equally obscene number of hours are spent keeping up with a taxcode that is far too broad for anyone to wrap their arms around.  Simplifying taxes has the potential of returning $300 billion to the economy every single year without "costing" the government a cent.

What would the economic impact of something like that be?

Then consider all the misinvestment of resources motivated by taking advantage of a tax code that spans 73,608 pages ( sourcehttp://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2012/04/2012-how-many-pages-are-there-in-us-tax.html)

Tax simplification could be the gift that keeps on giving.

im a proponent of flat tax too and would also love to see a Singaporean flat tax here with 1/10 of our citizenry being millionaires...

unfortunately, romneys fiscal plan only works when growth is combined with a lower rate offset by deductions... if u take any of the 3 out of the equation, it will still show a deficit ... romney knows this quite well so he made a point to emphasize there has to be growth so more ppl are taxed after obama first brought up the 5billion hole... no stellar growth, but lower rates and deductions will still cause a deficit... flat tax wont help either, cause the top 15% tier of tax payers pay for about 60% of our government spending (too heavily skewed as it is, therefore the gov would be losing major money at this point)... in order to have a flat tax, our luxory tax and sales tax would have to make up for the deficit (im actually fine with this since i rarely spend more than i need, but i think most ppl will probably be against it, since we do have a consumerist culture)

How about we cut govt spending?  It's gotten very bloated over the years. 

 

[winex]

One thing that I wish Romney would have said, and that I hope Ryan will touch upon next Thursday is the impact of tax simplification on the economy.  Though I would love for Obama's rumored $5 trillion in tax cuts that Romney plans to be true, what would happen if a combination of lower rates EXACTLY offset by elimination of ALL deductions/loopholes/whatever were to take place and we had a flat tax.

Currently the US economy spends $300 billion a year on tax compliance.

That is an obscene amount of money, and an equally obscene number of hours are spent keeping up with a taxcode that is far too broad for anyone to wrap their arms around.  Simplifying taxes has the potential of returning $300 billion to the economy every single year without "costing" the government a cent.

What would the economic impact of something like that be?

Then consider all the misinvestment of resources motivated by taking advantage of a tax code that spans 73,608 pages ( sourcehttp://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2012/04/2012-how-many-pages-are-there-in-us-tax.html)

Tax simplification could be the gift that keeps on giving.

The only bad thing is that it would cost many CPAs/EAs their jobs.

Or it could change the nature of their jobs.  Instead of navigating the bureaucracy of our tax system, they could be freed to use the same skills for financial planning.

 

[usctrojancpa]

One thing that I wish Romney would have said, and that I hope Ryan will touch upon next Thursday is the impact of tax simplification on the economy.  Though I would love for Obama's rumored $5 trillion in tax cuts that Romney plans to be true, what would happen if a combination of lower rates EXACTLY offset by elimination of ALL deductions/loopholes/whatever were to take place and we had a flat tax.

Currently the US economy spends $300 billion a year on tax compliance.

That is an obscene amount of money, and an equally obscene number of hours are spent keeping up with a taxcode that is far too broad for anyone to wrap their arms around.  Simplifying taxes has the potential of returning $300 billion to the economy every single year without "costing" the government a cent.

What would the economic impact of something like that be?

Then consider all the misinvestment of resources motivated by taking advantage of a tax code that spans 73,608 pages ( sourcehttp://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2012/04/2012-how-many-pages-are-there-in-us-tax.html)

Tax simplification could be the gift that keeps on giving.

The only bad thing is that it would cost many CPAs/EAs their jobs.

Or it could change the nature of their jobs.  Instead of navigating the bureaucracy of our tax system, they could be freed to use the same skills for financial planning.

Good point, it would make tax planning less complicated and time consuming.

 

[winex]

One thing that I wish Romney would have said, and that I hope Ryan will touch upon next Thursday is the impact of tax simplification on the economy.  Though I would love for Obama's rumored $5 trillion in tax cuts that Romney plans to be true, what would happen if a combination of lower rates EXACTLY offset by elimination of ALL deductions/loopholes/whatever were to take place and we had a flat tax.

Currently the US economy spends $300 billion a year on tax compliance.

That is an obscene amount of money, and an equally obscene number of hours are spent keeping up with a taxcode that is far too broad for anyone to wrap their arms around.  Simplifying taxes has the potential of returning $300 billion to the economy every single year without "costing" the government a cent.

What would the economic impact of something like that be?

Then consider all the misinvestment of resources motivated by taking advantage of a tax code that spans 73,608 pages ( sourcehttp://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2012/04/2012-how-many-pages-are-there-in-us-tax.html)

Tax simplification could be the gift that keeps on giving.

im a proponent of flat tax too and would also love to see a Singaporean flat tax here with 1/10 of our citizenry being millionaires...

unfortunately, romneys fiscal plan only works when growth is combined with a lower rate offset by deductions... if u take any of the 3 out of the equation, it will still show a deficit ... romney knows this quite well so he made a point to emphasize there has to be growth so more ppl are taxed after obama first brought up the 5billion hole... no stellar growth, but lower rates and deductions will still cause a deficit... flat tax wont help either, cause the top 15% tier of tax payers pay for about 60% of our government spending (too heavily skewed as it is, therefore the gov would be losing major money at this point)... in order to have a flat tax, our luxory tax and sales tax would have to make up for the deficit (im actually fine with this since i rarely spend more than i need, but i think most ppl will probably be against it, since we do have a consumerist culture)

How about we cut govt spending?  It's gotten very bloated over the years.

There is the understatement of the day!

Along those lines, there is another thing I wish that Romney would have approached differently.  He said that his litmus test for spending would be whether or not a program was worth borrowing money from the Chinese to finance.

To me, that should be a secondary test, not a primary one.  First of all it is way too subjective.  The primary litmus test should be objective - does a program fall under the enumerated powers given to the Federal government by our Constitution.  With that as a test, we could probably eliminate 2/3rds of government spending.

 

[changm55]

One thing that I wish Romney would have said, and that I hope Ryan will touch upon next Thursday is the impact of tax simplification on the economy.  Though I would love for Obama's rumored $5 trillion in tax cuts that Romney plans to be true, what would happen if a combination of lower rates EXACTLY offset by elimination of ALL deductions/loopholes/whatever were to take place and we had a flat tax.

Currently the US economy spends $300 billion a year on tax compliance.

That is an obscene amount of money, and an equally obscene number of hours are spent keeping up with a taxcode that is far too broad for anyone to wrap their arms around.  Simplifying taxes has the potential of returning $300 billion to the economy every single year without "costing" the government a cent.

What would the economic impact of something like that be?

Then consider all the misinvestment of resources motivated by taking advantage of a tax code that spans 73,608 pages ( sourcehttp://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2012/04/2012-how-many-pages-are-there-in-us-tax.html)

Tax simplification could be the gift that keeps on giving.

im a proponent of flat tax too and would also love to see a Singaporean flat tax here with 1/10 of our citizenry being millionaires...

unfortunately, romneys fiscal plan only works when growth is combined with a lower rate offset by deductions... if u take any of the 3 out of the equation, it will still show a deficit ... romney knows this quite well so he made a point to emphasize there has to be growth so more ppl are taxed after obama first brought up the 5billion hole... no stellar growth, but lower rates and deductions will still cause a deficit... flat tax wont help either, cause the top 15% tier of tax payers pay for about 60% of our government spending (too heavily skewed as it is, therefore the gov would be losing major money at this point)... in order to have a flat tax, our luxory tax and sales tax would have to make up for the deficit (im actually fine with this since i rarely spend more than i need, but i think most ppl will probably be against it, since we do have a consumerist culture)

How about we cut govt spending?  It's gotten very bloated over the years.

haha i think bloated is an under statement >_<!!

 

[changm55]

haha u posted the same thing i did at the same time !! hahahhaaa

 

[winex]

One thing that I wish Romney would have said, and that I hope Ryan will touch upon next Thursday is the impact of tax simplification on the economy.  Though I would love for Obama's rumored $5 trillion in tax cuts that Romney plans to be true, what would happen if a combination of lower rates EXACTLY offset by elimination of ALL deductions/loopholes/whatever were to take place and we had a flat tax.

Currently the US economy spends $300 billion a year on tax compliance.

That is an obscene amount of money, and an equally obscene number of hours are spent keeping up with a taxcode that is far too broad for anyone to wrap their arms around.  Simplifying taxes has the potential of returning $300 billion to the economy every single year without "costing" the government a cent.

What would the economic impact of something like that be?

Then consider all the misinvestment of resources motivated by taking advantage of a tax code that spans 73,608 pages ( sourcehttp://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2012/04/2012-how-many-pages-are-there-in-us-tax.html)

Tax simplification could be the gift that keeps on giving.

The only bad thing is that it would cost many CPAs/EAs their jobs.

Or it could change the nature of their jobs.  Instead of navigating the bureaucracy of our tax system, they could be freed to use the same skills for financial planning.

Good point, it would make tax planning less complicated and time consuming.

Thank you.  Also think about the impact on the economy of removing dead weight from government off of the backs of people everywhere.  Aside from the additional $300 billion (a little Googling shows that number is conservative.  Arthur Laffer estimates the burden at over $430 billion annually) that people would be free to spend/invest, there is a multiplier effect from using money towards more productive things.