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

[Conservative]

While increasing them for everyone else.




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.

So, what the left is now saying... is that they were for closing loopholes and eliminating deductions, before they were against it. Got it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

While increasing them for everyone else.




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.

You are flat out wrong. I can't prove a negative but you CAN prove a positive. Show me the EXACT part of Mitt Romney's plan that backs up your statement. You can find a link to his actual plan in the article posted in the first link.

Mitt Romeny's plan raises NO ONE'S TAXES. Not the rich, not the poor, not the middle class...no one's. Here is his own plan for individual taxes from his own website. As you can see no taxes are being raised and the people in that article used assumption, not fact, to come to their conclusion.

Tax

"America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.
•Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
•Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate the Death Tax
•Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)"

^ not one of those raises taxes on anyone be it rich, poor, or middle class. To say otherwise is dishonest.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

So, what the left is now saying... is that they were for closing loopholes and eliminating deductions, before they were against it. Got it.

Nice attempt at diversion from the fact that Willard Mitt, rhymes with ...., is cutting taxes on himself and raising taxes on the middle class and poor by eliminating deductions and closing loopholes, what the GOP calls "broadening the base."

 

[DontBeStupid]

You are flat out wrong. I can't prove a negative but you CAN prove a positive. Show me the EXACT part of Mitt Romney's plan that backs up your statement. You can find a link to his actual plan in the article posted in the first link.

Mitt Romeny's plan raises NO ONE'S TAXES. Not the rich, not the poor, not the middle class...no one's. Here is his own plan for individual taxes from his own website. As you can see no taxes are being raised and the people in that article used assumption, not fact, to come to their conclusion.

Tax

"America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.
•Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
•Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate the Death Tax
•Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)"

^ not one of those raises taxes on anyone be it rich, poor, or middle class. To say otherwise is dishonest.

So you also think Willard is lying. Interesting. Why do you think he would lie about his plan?

 

[SniperFire]

You are flat out wrong. I can't prove a negative but you CAN prove a positive. Show me the EXACT part of Mitt Romney's plan that backs up your statement. You can find a link to his actual plan in the article posted in the first link.

Mitt Romeny's plan raises NO ONE'S TAXES. Not the rich, not the poor, not the middle class...no one's. Here is his own plan for individual taxes from his own website. As you can see no taxes are being raised and the people in that article used assumption, not fact, to come to their conclusion.

Tax

"America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.
•Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
•Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate the Death Tax
•Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)"

^ not one of those raises taxes on anyone be it rich, poor, or middle class. To say otherwise is dishonest.

So you also think Willard is lying. Interesting. Why would do you think he lie about his plan?

Even you were forced to admit that taxes are not a zero sum game.


Give up.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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:

So, what the left is now saying... is that they were for closing loopholes and eliminating deductions, before they were against it. Got it.

Nice attempt at diversion from the fact that Willard Mitt, rhymes with ...., is cutting taxes on himself and raising taxes on the middle class and poor by eliminating deductions and closing loopholes, what the GOP calls "broadening the base."

Again please prove, using Mitt Romney's own plan and not someone's conjecture about it, that he is raising taxes on the middle class.

Please link your evidence so I can review it myself

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You are flat out wrong. I can't prove a negative but you CAN prove a positive. Show me the EXACT part of Mitt Romney's plan that backs up your statement. You can find a link to his actual plan in the article posted in the first link.

Mitt Romeny's plan raises NO ONE'S TAXES. Not the rich, not the poor, not the middle class...no one's. Here is his own plan for individual taxes from his own website. As you can see no taxes are being raised and the people in that article used assumption, not fact, to come to their conclusion.

Tax

"America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.
•Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
•Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate the Death Tax
•Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)"

^ not one of those raises taxes on anyone be it rich, poor, or middle class. To say otherwise is dishonest.

So you also think Willard is lying. Interesting. Why do you think he would lie about his plan?

At no point did I say that Romney was lying at all. Please don't put up strawmen, I'm not here for debates on conjecture.

 

[Katzndogz]

The poor, who pay no taxes now, would not pay taxes under Romney's plan either so how would the poor be paying more?

Letting people keep more of what they earned is unacceptable only in a government of bureaucratic highwaymen.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Its tough to get through life as an progressive neo-communist when nothing in life is "fair"............

Bureaucrats should do something to improve their lives for them.........

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

So, what the left is now saying... is that they were for closing loopholes and eliminating deductions, before they were against it. Got it.

They want that for all others.. not for them.. not for those they pander to

 

[Conservative]

Nice attempt at diversion from the fact that Willard Mitt, rhymes with ...., is cutting taxes on himself and raising taxes on the middle class and poor by eliminating deductions and closing loopholes, what the GOP calls "broadening the base."

So, now what the left is saying... is that closing loopholes and eliminating deductions lowers the taxes opf rich people but raises the taxes of poor people.

Care to cite an example, backing it up with a link?

 

[DontBeStupid]

You are flat out wrong. I can't prove a negative but you CAN prove a positive. Show me the EXACT part of Mitt Romney's plan that backs up your statement. You can find a link to his actual plan in the article posted in the first link.

Mitt Romeny's plan raises NO ONE'S TAXES. Not the rich, not the poor, not the middle class...no one's. Here is his own plan for individual taxes from his own website. As you can see no taxes are being raised and the people in that article used assumption, not fact, to come to their conclusion.

Tax

"America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.
•Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
•Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate the Death Tax
•Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)"

^ not one of those raises taxes on anyone be it rich, poor, or middle class. To say otherwise is dishonest.

So you also think Willard is lying. Interesting. Why do you think he would lie about his plan?

At no point did I say that Romney was lying at all. Please don't put up strawmen, I'm not here for debates on conjecture.

Do we agree on the following?

1. Romney's plan cuts taxes for at least the top earners. Maybe more, but we agree, definitely, the top earners.
2. Romney's plan, by his own admission, is zero sum. It's revenue neutral. It will bring in the same tax revenue.

Can we agree on just that? I think we can.

So, since we agree, please explain to us all how the plan can be revenue neutral, while at the same time it brings in less money from one particular group.

How can that happen?

And please post your evidence so we can review it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who cares if it accelerates job formation?

A lot of economical thinkers think if we take care of business, that business will take care of us.

But it hasn't.

Previous administrations that cut that tax rate for the top tier didn't see job growth. Both Reagan and George W. Bush took these actions. And with very much the same results.

The top tier wound up not only not investing and paying themselves bigger salaries..but job growth actually slowed.

Previous administrations that cut that tax rate for the top tier didn't see job growth. Both Reagan and George W. Bush took these actions. And with very much the same results.

You are mistaken.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Who cares if it accelerates job formation?

A lot of economical thinkers think if we take care of business, that business will take care of us.

But it hasn't.

Previous administrations that cut that tax rate for the top tier didn't see job growth. Both Reagan and George W. Bush took these actions. And with very much the same results.

The top tier wound up not only not investing and paying themselves bigger salaries..but job growth actually slowed.

Previous administrations that cut that tax rate for the top tier didn't see job growth. Both Reagan and George W. Bush took these actions. And with very much the same results.

You are mistaken.

No. He's not.

Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Someone needs to explain the math behind how this...

Romney's individual tax plan consists of five key bullet points, according to his campaign website:

• Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
• Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate the Death Tax
• Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

...equals an increase in my taxes.

Go on, lets see your math.

Liberals can't do math.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But it hasn't.

Previous administrations that cut that tax rate for the top tier didn't see job growth. Both Reagan and George W. Bush took these actions. And with very much the same results.

The top tier wound up not only not investing and paying themselves bigger salaries..but job growth actually slowed.

Previous administrations that cut that tax rate for the top tier didn't see job growth. Both Reagan and George W. Bush took these actions. And with very much the same results.

You are mistaken.

No. He's not.

Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He claimed Reagan and Bush didn't see job growth after tax cuts. He is mistaken.

 

[SniperFire]

So you also think Willard is lying. Interesting. Why do you think he would lie about his plan?

At no point did I say that Romney was lying at all. Please don't put up strawmen, I'm not here for debates on conjecture.

Do we agree on the following?

1. Romney's plan cuts taxes for at least the top earners. Maybe more, but we agree, definitely, the top earners.
2. Romney's plan, by his own admission, is zero sum. It's revenue neutral. It will bring in the same tax revenue.

Can we agree on just that? I think we can.

So, since we agree, please explain to us all how the plan can be revenue neutral, while at the same time it brings in less money from one particular group.

How can that happen?

And please post your evidence so we can review it.

You are obtuse.

Cutting tax rates for the rich has been documented to actually increase tax receipts from them each and every time it has been tried. That is how you can be revenue neutral even though a tax rate is cut.

See, tax receipts are are not a zero sum game. But you have been told that repeatedly, but you just can't accept it.

Don't be stupid.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Previous administrations that cut that tax rate for the top tier didn't see job growth. Both Reagan and George W. Bush took these actions. And with very much the same results.

You are mistaken.

No. He's not.

Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He claimed Reagan and Bush didn't see job growth after tax cuts. He is mistaken.

Did you look at the link? From 2001-2003 Bush cut taxes for the top incomes and from 2001-2005 the total job growth was 0%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know what? If I was a part of the ultra rich and I wanted my income tax rate to be reduced every chance I could get, I would have to think of a reason to cut my taxes.

And what could/would be the best "reason" that I could give to a nation that needs jobs.

Oh I know. I would tell them that if my taxes are cut, I will create jobs.

Of course it is all bull shit. But it sure sells well.

If tax cuts on the ultra wealthy created jobs, well the UE numbers would be lower and Mittens wouldn't stand a chance of winning.

But it is a good, plausible lie. The best kind.

I still can't figure out why some of you rethugs want to be waterboys for the ultra rich. They are big boys and girls. They can fight their own tax battles. And they ain't looking out for you.

But you all really "feel their pain".

If tax cuts on the ultra wealthy created jobs, well the UE numbers would be lower

Rates haven't been cut since 2003.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So you also think Willard is lying. Interesting. Why do you think he would lie about his plan?

At no point did I say that Romney was lying at all. Please don't put up strawmen, I'm not here for debates on conjecture.

Do we agree on the following?

1. Romney's plan cuts taxes for at least the top earners. Maybe more, but we agree, definitely, the top earners.
2. Romney's plan, by his own admission, is zero sum. It's revenue neutral. It will bring in the same tax revenue.

Can we agree on just that? I think we can.

So, since we agree, please explain to us all how the plan can be revenue neutral, while at the same time it brings in less money from one particular group.

How can that happen?

And please post your evidence so we can review it.

Why are you changing the subject? The claim of this thread is that Romney's tax plan raises taxes on the middle class. That is a lie and I proved so using Romney's own plan linked in my previous post.

Please feel free to provide any actual evidence in Romney's plan (linked please so I can verify myself) that he is raising middle class taxes and I will change my tune, until then I'm not interested on going off onto other tangents.

EDIT: In the past lowering taxes actually ends up increasing federal tax revenues, to a point, due to the increased economic activity the extra money being in the economy brings.