New Independent Study Show Romney plan would cut taxes for the rich..

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

While increasing them for everyone else.

Mitt Romney's plan revamping the tax code would end up cutting taxes for the richest 5 percent of Americans and raising taxes on everyone else, according to new independent study from the Brookings Institute and Tax Policy Center released Wednesday morning.

The study finds that Romney's plan would end up cutting taxes by about $87,000 on millionaires under a revenue-neutral model. The top 0.1 percent would see their after-tax revenue income rise by 4.4 percent. Meanwhile, the study estimates that the bottom 95 percent would see about 1.2 percent less after-tax income. They'll see taxes rise about $500, according to the study.


Read more: Mitt Romney's Tax Plan Would Cut Taxes For Rich, Raise For Middle Class: Study - Business Insider

The Romney camp has already called them "liberal outfits".

But when he was citing the exact same folks to attack Rick Perry..they were "independent".

There is a flaw with that. If you click on your link then click on the source link in the article you will see romney's plan actually doesn't have any tax increases in it for anyone.

So someone at that outfit was either mistaken with their numbers or dishonest.

In fact, doing away with the AMT will lower taxes for many low income people (just one example) Here is how the AMT works Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) Assistant for Individuals

"Regular taxable income is adjusted for certain items computed differently for AMT, such as depreciation and medical expenses. No deduction is allowed for state income taxes or miscellaneous itemized deductions in computing AMT income. Taxpayers with incomes above the exemption whose regular Federal income tax is below the amount of AMT must pay the higher AMT amount."

 

[SniperFire]

As I understand the plan, and Romney has described it as such, it's "revenue neutral". Therefore, after placing all those cuts you listed, additional money will have to come from the other income levels in order for the plan to be neutral. If not, then the plan purposely lowers tax receipts.

So, cuts for the top. Increases for the bottom. Simple math.

Tax receipts are a zero sum game, then?

Obviously no. But Romney and his camp are all calling his plan revenue neutral. They are saying the total tax receipts won't change. So if receipts are designed to go down, either he doesn't understand his plan or he's lying. I think he understands it fine and knows it will raise taxes on 95% of the population.

No 'buts', idiot.

 

[DiamondDave]

As soon as the lower income earners pay the same rate on every dollar earned, just as the rest of the populace would... and then a politician (Romney in this case) would try and lower the taxes of the rich below that of everyone else... THEN I WOULD GIVE A SHIT

But as it stands now... unless they would be taxed at less than zero, NOBODY should even bat an eye.. because we have millions of earners paying zero in income taxes....

 

[DontBeStupid]

Tax receipts are a zero sum game, then?

Obviously no. But Romney and his camp are all calling his plan revenue neutral. They are saying the total tax receipts won't change. So if receipts are designed to go down, either he doesn't understand his plan or he's lying. I think he understands it fine and knows it will raise taxes on 95% of the population.

No 'buts', idiot.

Well, if you want to just ignore what I wrote, ok. Then perhaps you'd like to explain how the total of tax revenue won't change, but the top 5% will pay less. How does that math work?

 

[SniperFire]

Obviously no. But Romney and his camp are all calling his plan revenue neutral. They are saying the total tax receipts won't change. So if receipts are designed to go down, either he doesn't understand his plan or he's lying. I think he understands it fine and knows it will raise taxes on 95% of the population.

No 'buts', idiot.

Well, if you want to just ignore what I wrote, ok. Then perhaps you'd like to explain how the total of tax revenue won't change, but the top 5% will pay less. How does that math work?

Here is what you wrote, class warrior:

'So, cuts for the top. Increases for the bottom. Simple math.'

That, as you just admitted, is horseshit.

 

[DontBeStupid]

No 'buts', idiot.

Well, if you want to just ignore what I wrote, ok. Then perhaps you'd like to explain how the total of tax revenue won't change, but the top 5% will pay less. How does that math work?

Here is what you wrote, class warrior:

'So, cuts for the top. Increases for the bottom. Simple math.'

That, as you just admitted, is horseshit.

You want to believe it's horseshit because you refuse to look at the plan.

Again I will ask you. If the total tax revenue doesn't change but the top 5% pay less, how does that work?

 

[SniperFire]

Well, if you want to just ignore what I wrote, ok. Then perhaps you'd like to explain how the total of tax revenue won't change, but the top 5% will pay less. How does that math work?

Here is what you wrote, class warrior:

'So, cuts for the top. Increases for the bottom. Simple math.'

That, as you just admitted, is horseshit.

You want to believe it's horseshit because you refuse to look at the plan.

Again I will ask you. If the total tax revenue doesn't change but the top 5% pay less, how does that work?

You are trying to spin away from your idiocy.

If tax revenues are not a zero sum game, why did you claim:


'So, cuts for the top. Increases for the bottom. Simple math.'

 

[DontBeStupid]

Here is what you wrote, class warrior:

'So, cuts for the top. Increases for the bottom. Simple math.'

That, as you just admitted, is horseshit.

You want to believe it's horseshit because you refuse to look at the plan.

Again I will ask you. If the total tax revenue doesn't change but the top 5% pay less, how does that work?

You are trying to spin away from your idiocy.

If tax revenues are not a zero sum game, why did you claim:


'So, cuts for the top. Increases for the bottom. Simple math.'

BECAUSE ROMNEY SAID THE TOTAL WOULDN'T CHANGE!

Seriously, READ posts before crying about them. You'll look less idiotic.

 

[SniperFire]

You want to believe it's horseshit because you refuse to look at the plan.

Again I will ask you. If the total tax revenue doesn't change but the top 5% pay less, how does that work?

You are trying to spin away from your idiocy.

If tax revenues are not a zero sum game, why did you claim:


'So, cuts for the top. Increases for the bottom. Simple math.'

BECAUSE ROMNEY SAID THE TOTAL WOULDN'T CHANGE!

Seriously, READ posts before crying about them. You'll look less idiotic.

Have tax receipts ever increased when top rates were cut for the rich but not increased for everyone else?


This would be a good time for you to log off.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[DontBeStupid]

You are trying to spin away from your idiocy.

If tax revenues are not a zero sum game, why did you claim:


'So, cuts for the top. Increases for the bottom. Simple math.'

BECAUSE ROMNEY SAID THE TOTAL WOULDN'T CHANGE!

Seriously, READ posts before crying about them. You'll look less idiotic.

Have tax receipts ever increased when top rates were cut for the rich but not increased for everyone else?


This would be a good time for you to log off.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Once.

You think it will happen again? Why?

 

[SniperFire]

BECAUSE ROMNEY SAID THE TOTAL WOULDN'T CHANGE!

Seriously, READ posts before crying about them. You'll look less idiotic.

Have tax receipts ever increased when top rates were cut for the rich but not increased for everyone else?


This would be a good time for you to log off.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Once.

You think it will happen again? Why?

You know absolutely nothing about the subject, do you?

 

[SniperFire]

If you weren't so fucking stupid, you would know that tax receipts are NOT a zero sum game, and that in fact in our history a cut in tax rates for the rich has not only been revenue neutral but in FOUR instances has increases Federal tax receipts to RECORD LEVELS.

 

[DontBeStupid]

If you weren't so fucking stupid, you would know that tax receipts are NOT a zero sum game, and that in fact in our history a cut in tax rates for the rich has not only been revenue neutral but in FOUR instances has increases Federal tax receipts to RECORD LEVELS.

Wow dude. Wow.

I said tax receipts weren't zero sum.

Romney said his plan is zero sum.

I mean, do you even read anyone's posts?

 

[edthecynic]

 

[SniperFire]

If you weren't so fucking stupid, you would know that tax receipts are NOT a zero sum game, and that in fact in our history a cut in tax rates for the rich has not only been revenue neutral but in FOUR instances has increases Federal tax receipts to RECORD LEVELS.

Wow dude. Wow.

I said tax receipts weren't zero sum.

Romney said his plan is zero sum.

I mean, do you even read anyone's posts?

What you said was that the poor folk would be stuck paying more because the rich would be getting rate cuts. You said it was 'simple math.' This is of course absurd.

You have been embarrassed by your poor understanding of the subject.

 

[DontBeStupid]

If you weren't so fucking stupid, you would know that tax receipts are NOT a zero sum game, and that in fact in our history a cut in tax rates for the rich has not only been revenue neutral but in FOUR instances has increases Federal tax receipts to RECORD LEVELS.

Wow dude. Wow.

I said tax receipts weren't zero sum.

Romney said his plan is zero sum.

I mean, do you even read anyone's posts?

What you said was that the poor folk would be stuck paying more because the rich would be getting rate cuts. You said it was 'simple math.' This is of course absurd.

You have been embarrassed by your poor understanding of the subject.

Oh. Ok. So you think Romney is lying then when he says his plan is zero sum. Interesting. Why do you think he would lie about something like this?

 

[edthecynic]

While increasing them for everyone else.

Mitt Romney's plan revamping the tax code would end up cutting taxes for the richest 5 percent of Americans and raising taxes on everyone else, according to new independent study from the Brookings Institute and Tax Policy Center released Wednesday morning.

The study finds that Romney's plan would end up cutting taxes by about $87,000 on millionaires under a revenue-neutral model. The top 0.1 percent would see their after-tax revenue income rise by 4.4 percent. Meanwhile, the study estimates that the bottom 95 percent would see about 1.2 percent less after-tax income. They'll see taxes rise about $500, according to the study.


Read more: Mitt Romney's Tax Plan Would Cut Taxes For Rich, Raise For Middle Class: Study - Business Insider

The Romney camp has already called them "liberal outfits".

But when he was citing the exact same folks to attack Rick Perry..they were "independent".

There is a flaw with that. If you click on your link then click on the source link in the article you will see romney's plan actually doesn't have any tax increases in it for anyone.

So someone at that outfit was either mistaken with their numbers or dishonest.

In fact, doing away with the AMT will lower taxes for many low income people (just one example) Here is how the AMT works Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) Assistant for Individuals

"Regular taxable income is adjusted for certain items computed differently for AMT, such as depreciation and medical expenses. No deduction is allowed for state income taxes or miscellaneous itemized deductions in computing AMT income. Taxpayers with incomes above the exemption whose regular Federal income tax is below the amount of AMT must pay the higher AMT amount."

Actually the flaw is yours. What you and everyone else on the right are doing is pretending to forget how Willard Mitt, rhymes with ...., said he would make his tax cuts revenue neutral. He said he would eliminate deductions and close loopholes. So what the study did was calculate the effect of the tax cuts plus eliminating deductions and closing loopholes at each income level.

From the report cited in the link in the OP:

Our major conclusion is that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed – including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment – would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers. This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible. For instance, even when we assume that tax breaks – like the charitable deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the exclusion for health insurance – are completely eliminated for higher-income households first, and only then reduced as necessary for other households to achieve overall revenue-neutrality– the net effect of the plan would be a tax cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income households.

In addition, we also assess whether these results hold if we assume that revenue reductions are partially offset by higher economic growth. Although reasonable models would show that these tax changes would have little effect on growth, we show that even with implausibly large growth effects, revenue neutrality would still require large reductions in tax expenditures and would likely result in a net tax increase for lower- and middle-income households and tax cuts for high-income households.

 

[RDD_1210]

If you weren't so fucking stupid, you would know that tax receipts are NOT a zero sum game, and that in fact in our history a cut in tax rates for the rich has not only been revenue neutral but in FOUR instances has increases Federal tax receipts to RECORD LEVELS.

Wow dude. Wow.

I said tax receipts weren't zero sum.

Romney said his plan is zero sum.

I mean, do you even read anyone's posts?

What you said was that the poor folk would be stuck paying more because the rich would be getting rate cuts. You said it was 'simple math.' This is of course absurd.

You have been embarrassed by your poor understanding of the subject.

You're embarrassing yourself again.

 

[Sallow]

Wow dude. Wow.

I said tax receipts weren't zero sum.

Romney said his plan is zero sum.

I mean, do you even read anyone's posts?

What you said was that the poor folk would be stuck paying more because the rich would be getting rate cuts. You said it was 'simple math.' This is of course absurd.

You have been embarrassed by your poor understanding of the subject.

You're embarrassing yourself again.

Again?

How about each and every time she posts..

It's funnier when she declares victory.

 

[SniperFire]

Wow dude. Wow.

I said tax receipts weren't zero sum.

Romney said his plan is zero sum.

I mean, do you even read anyone's posts?

What you said was that the poor folk would be stuck paying more because the rich would be getting rate cuts. You said it was 'simple math.' This is of course absurd.

You have been embarrassed by your poor understanding of the subject.

Oh. Ok. So you think Romney is lying then when he says his plan is zero sum. Interesting. Why do you think he would lie about something like this?

Do you think posing a strawman is really going to help you?

What you said was that the poor folk would be stuck paying more because the rich would be getting rate cuts. You said it was 'simple math.' This is of course absurd.

You are intellectually dishonest.