How does a 20% cut make the 47% pay income taxes?

[RDD_1210]

It's impossible to explain economics to a democrat because democrats don't believe in economic growth. Wealth is zero sum. So no matter how many times, or how patient you are in trying to explain it to a democrat they believe what their propaganda tells them.

Wealth is zero sum???

Would love for you to explain that one.

Fuck you're insane.

 

[American Horse]

The 20% reduction to marginal rates will be offset by:

Deductions; some of which will become income tested,others which will be eliminated, and some of which allow deductions for "future" gifting of an estate to a foundation (many of these foundations - Bill Gates as an example - aim their financial support to other countries) but get an immediate deduction to present earnings.

Loopholes; those of which are aimed at cronies and support large business at the expense of smaller businesses (smaller businesses are classed as those with less than 500 employess by the SBA)

CREDITS; checks from the government which render certain taxpayers income tax beneficiaries rather than income tax payers. Remove the credit and they become net payers rather than net takers.

These are just my immediate favorites, but there are many, many more, some of which make earners into takers.

 

[zeke]

The 20% reduction to marginal rates will be offset by:
Deductions; some of which will become income tested,others which will be eliminated, and some of which allow deductions for "future" gifting of an estate to a foundation (many of these foundations - Bill Gates as an example - aim their financial support to other countries) but get an immediate deduction to present earnings.

Loopholes; those of which are aimed at cronies and support large business at the expense of smaller businesses (smaller businesses are classed as those with less than 500 employess by the SBA)

CREDITS; checks from the government which render certain taxpayers income tax beneficiaries rather than income tax payers. Remove the credit and they become net payers rather than net takers.

These are just my immediate favorites, but there are many, many more, some of which make earners into takers.

That is all well and good. However, the people that get the EIC, those people do not use itemized deductions for the most part.

Again, cutting tax rates makes the 47% pay more taxes how?? Will the EIC be eliminated or cut back? Wouldn't that be a tax increase? for poorer people?

 

[zeke]

It's impossible to explain economics to a democrat because democrats don't believe in economic growth. Wealth is zero sum. So no matter how many times, or how patient you are in trying to explain it to a democrat they believe what their propaganda tells them.

Really? Impossible?

Try again? If Mitt cuts taxes for all, how does that make the 47% who pay no taxes (according to Mitt) now have to pay more. Or any. How is a cut in taxes for all an increaese for those that pay none? Or have you rethugs quit worrying about the 47% who get the EIC?

 

[SniperFire]

All else being equal it would add to the number of households who pay no taxes.

A simplified example:

1. If your taxable income - before you take your credits - was 20,000, and your tax rate was 10%,

you would owe $2000.

2. If you then found you had $1600 in tax credits, i.e., child tax credit, EIC, etc.,

your final tax bill would then be $200.

3. If your tax rate were cut 20%, however, instead of owing $2000, you would owe $1600.

THEN when you took your $1600 in tax credits, your tax bill would fall to ZERO.

* * * *

The question is, does Romney really think that people paying no taxes is a bad thing, like he said when he thought no one was listening, and if so,

why does he want to make more of those people?

I happen to know the answer....

I see you are still thumping that same ol' strawman.

LOL

Romney specifically said he intends to create million jobs with the tax cuts, creating more taxpayers, not 'more of those people.'

You are a lying piece of shit, dude.

 

[zeke]

All else being equal it would add to the number of households who pay no taxes.

A simplified example:

1. If your taxable income - before you take your credits - was 20,000, and your tax rate was 10%,

you would owe $2000.

2. If you then found you had $1600 in tax credits, i.e., child tax credit, EIC, etc.,

your final tax bill would then be $200.

3. If your tax rate were cut 20%, however, instead of owing $2000, you would owe $1600.

THEN when you took your $1600 in tax credits, your tax bill would fall to ZERO.

* * * *

The question is, does Romney really think that people paying no taxes is a bad thing, like he said when he thought no one was listening, and if so,

why does he want to make more of those people?

I happen to know the answer....

I see you are still thumping that same ol' strawman.

LOL

Romney specifically said he intends to create million jobs with the tax cuts, creating more taxpayers, not 'more of those people.'

You are a lying piece of shit, dude.

Millions of jobs paying what. 10 bucks an hour. Or maybe you think all those minimum wage jobs are going away?

Face it dude, Mittens is selling you bullshit and you are buying it.

How will Mittens make those who currently get back all Federal Income tax they pay in, plus some, now have more "skin in the game". Without raising their taxes. Cause he wants to cut taxes for all.

 

[SniperFire]

All else being equal it would add to the number of households who pay no taxes.

A simplified example:

1. If your taxable income - before you take your credits - was 20,000, and your tax rate was 10%,

you would owe $2000.

2. If you then found you had $1600 in tax credits, i.e., child tax credit, EIC, etc.,

your final tax bill would then be $200.

3. If your tax rate were cut 20%, however, instead of owing $2000, you would owe $1600.

THEN when you took your $1600 in tax credits, your tax bill would fall to ZERO.

* * * *

The question is, does Romney really think that people paying no taxes is a bad thing, like he said when he thought no one was listening, and if so,

why does he want to make more of those people?

I happen to know the answer....

I see you are still thumping that same ol' strawman.

LOL

Romney specifically said he intends to create million jobs with the tax cuts, creating more taxpayers, not 'more of those people.'

You are a lying piece of shit, dude.

Millions of jobs paying what. 10 bucks an hour. Or maybe you think all those minimum wage jobs are going away?

Face it dude, Mittens is selling you bullshit and you are buying it.

How will Mittens make those who currently get back all Federal Income tax they pay in, plus some, now have more "skin in the game". Without raising their taxes. Cause he wants to cut taxes for all.

The point, Obamabot, is that NYCarbineer is a lying piece of shit by obmitting details of Romney's plan in his pathetic argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All else being equal it would add to the number of households who pay no taxes.

A simplified example:

1. If your taxable income - before you take your credits - was 20,000, and your tax rate was 10%,

you would owe $2000.

2. If you then found you had $1600 in tax credits, i.e., child tax credit, EIC, etc.,

your final tax bill would then be $200.

3. If your tax rate were cut 20%, however, instead of owing $2000, you would owe $1600.

THEN when you took your $1600 in tax credits, your tax bill would fall to ZERO.

* * * *

The question is, does Romney really think that people paying no taxes is a bad thing, like he said when he thought no one was listening, and if so,

why does he want to make more of those people?

I happen to know the answer....

I see you are still thumping that same ol' strawman.

LOL

Romney specifically said he intends to create million jobs with the tax cuts, creating more taxpayers, not 'more of those people.'

You are a lying piece of shit, dude.

He now claims he's not cutting taxes. He says his tax plan is 'revenue neutral'. That means, allegedly, that it collects the same amount of tax.

Not to mention the fact that he can't cut taxes for half of Americans; they already pay zero income tax.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's impossible to explain economics to a democrat because democrats don't believe in economic growth. Wealth is zero sum. So no matter how many times, or how patient you are in trying to explain it to a democrat they believe what their propaganda tells them.

Every Republican tax cut in the past 30 years has led to increased deficits. Every Republican tax cut in the past 30 years came with a promise it wouldn't.

At some point, it pays to stop believing Republicans when they claim to know what they're talking about when it comes to taxes, revenues, spending, and debt.

 

[JoeB131]

Romney proposes a 20% across the board tax cut. Right? And Romney says that 47% of Americans have "no skin in the game" because they don't pay any Federal Income tax.
SO how does a further 20% cut make the 47% now pay Federal Income tax. My inquiring mind wants to know.

Because in the process they wil get rid of the home mortgage deduction and the tuition deduction.

 

[zeke]

Romney proposes a 20% across the board tax cut. Right? And Romney says that 47% of Americans have "no skin in the game" because they don't pay any Federal Income tax.
SO how does a further 20% cut make the 47% now pay Federal Income tax. My inquiring mind wants to know.

Because in the process they wil get rid of the home mortgage deduction and the tuition deduction.

I know that sounds plausible. However. Most people who benefit from the EIC use the standard deduction in the tax code. Taking away those two would only hurt those of us still left in the middle.

Doesn't sound like the lower income people would benefit from the cuts ESPECIALLY if the Repug objective is to have lower income people pay net taxes. ie not recive in refund 100% plus of income taxes paid. Repugs would be calling for a significent tax hike on the poor to bring them into the realm of tax payer like the rest of us.

But they won't say that. 20% cut don't mean shit if you pay no taxes anyway. Poors poor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Romney's newest, last known position on his ever changing tax plan is that the Rich don't get a tax cut.

No tax cut for the Job Creators, he says now. They don't need a tax cut.

So, assuming he's not lying, AGAIN, where do you get the job creating stimulus from? The stimulus that you people keep claiming will come from cutting taxes for the Rich,

who you insist are the Job Creators?

 

[RDD_1210]

Romney's newest, last known position on his ever changing tax plan is that the Rich don't get a tax cut.

No tax cut for the Job Creators, he says now. They don't need a tax cut.

So, assuming he's not lying, AGAIN, where do you get the job creating stimulus from? The stimulus that you people keep claiming will come from cutting taxes for the Rich,

who you insist are the Job Creators?

Has he really said this?? Holy shit the man will literally say anything and these idiots don't care.

 

[Politico]

Why are the rethugs not asking this very same question. They are the ones all worked up about those 47%.

No one is worked up about anything. And the tax cuts have nothing to do with the 47%. Wasn't even mentioned in reference to the other.

 

[Erand7899]

Romney's newest, last known position on his ever changing tax plan is that the Rich don't get a tax cut.

No tax cut for the Job Creators, he says now. They don't need a tax cut.

So, assuming he's not lying, AGAIN, where do you get the job creating stimulus from? The stimulus that you people keep claiming will come from cutting taxes for the Rich,

who you insist are the Job Creators?

Your inability to comprehend complex subjects is a problem that you need to deal with, but does not, in any way, diminish Romney's tax proposals.

Perhaps the phrase "tax rate reduction" is where your confusion lies. A tax rate reduction does not automatically mean that all, or even one, will receive a tax cut. The second confusion factor might be not understanding that all loopholes do not apply to all taxpayers within the same economic sphere.

Consequently, some taxpayers at the high end will get a tax cut, and other taxpayers at the high end will wind up paying more taxes. The total tax bill of all high end taxpayers will remain about the same.

A simple fact that all left wingers seem to ignore, or do not understand, is that the big job creaters are not the rich, but those in the process of getting rich. The up and comers are the ones most willing to risk their capital to enlarge an existing business, or start new ones. Those are the ones who will receive the majority of the high end tax cuts, since they have few, if any, loopholes applicable to them.

I can easily envision the end to tax writeoffs for corporate jets, corporate yachts, corporate executive fleets, corporate appartments and executive housing. The end to lavish entertainment for visiting executives from other companies, and the like. And, the end to mineral depletion allowances, and the like.

The thousands of pages of the tax code contain an untold number of writeoffs that most of us do not even know exist. I would like to see them all gone.

 

[Flopper]

Romney proposes a 20% across the board tax cut. Right? And Romney says that 47% of Americans have "no skin in the game" because they don't pay any Federal Income tax.
SO how does a further 20% cut make the 47% now pay Federal Income tax. My inquiring mind wants to know.

It doesn't. A promise of a 20% across the board cut is designed to gain support from all voters. A promise to make those pay that pay nothing is designed to gain support from those that feel over taxed by an unfair system. Thankfully most political promises are rarely fulfilled because there're impractical and the results would be disastrous.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
A simple fact that all left wingers seem to ignore, or do not understand, is that the big job creaters are not the rich, but those in the process of getting rich.

Right, because no conservative on this forum ever referred to the rich as the job creators.

Don't make shit up.

The real job creators are the consumers who demand goods and services. Period. End of story