Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This paper examines the tradeoffs among three competing goals that are inherent in a revenueneutral income tax reformmaintaining tax revenues, ensuring a progressive tax system, and
lowering marginal tax ratesdrawing on the example of the tax policies advanced in presidential
candidate Mitt Romneys tax plan. Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual
income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide
large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lowerincome taxpayers.
Even if tax expenditures are eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible, there would still be a shift in the tax burden of roughly $86 billion from those making over $200,000 to those making less than that amount,
Americans making over $1 million would see an increase in after-tax income of 4.1 percent (an $87,000 tax cut), those making between $500,000 and $1 million would see an increase of 3.2 percent (a $17,000 tax cut), and those making between $200,000 and $500,000 would see an increase of 0.8 percent (a $1,800 tax cut).
Don't worry, dicksuck. You still won't have any tax burden.Attack the middle class so the rich can get richer.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf
This paper examines the tradeoffs among three competing goals that are inherent in a revenueneutral income tax reformmaintaining tax revenues, ensuring a progressive tax system, and
lowering marginal tax ratesdrawing on the example of the tax policies advanced in presidential
candidate Mitt Romneys tax plan. Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual
income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide
large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lowerincome taxpayers.
Some highlights:
Even if tax expenditures are eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible, there would still be a shift in the tax burden of roughly $86 billion from those making over $200,000 to those making less than that amount,
...
Americans making over $1 million would see an increase in after-tax income of 4.1 percent (an $87,000 tax cut), those making between $500,000 and $1 million would see an increase of 3.2 percent (a $17,000 tax cut), and those making between $200,000 and $500,000 would see an increase of 0.8 percent (a $1,800 tax cut).
We need to give everything we can to the "job creators" They deserve it more than anyone else!
Don't worry, dicksuck. You still won't have any tax burden.Attack the middle class so the rich can get richer.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf
This paper examines the tradeoffs among three competing goals that are inherent in a revenueneutral income tax reformmaintaining tax revenues, ensuring a progressive tax system, and
lowering marginal tax ratesdrawing on the example of the tax policies advanced in presidential
candidate Mitt Romneys tax plan. Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual
income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide
large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lowerincome taxpayers.
Some highlights:
...
Americans making over $1 million would see an increase in after-tax income of 4.1 percent (an $87,000 tax cut), those making between $500,000 and $1 million would see an increase of 3.2 percent (a $17,000 tax cut), and those making between $200,000 and $500,000 would see an increase of 0.8 percent (a $1,800 tax cut).
We need to give everything we can to the "job creators" They deserve it more than anyone else!
Who do you think makes most of the jobs in this country? People that have the capital to start the business.
Attack the middle class so the rich can get richer.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf
This paper examines the tradeoffs among three competing goals that are inherent in a revenueneutral income tax reformmaintaining tax revenues, ensuring a progressive tax system, and
lowering marginal tax ratesdrawing on the example of the tax policies advanced in presidential
candidate Mitt Romneys tax plan. Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual
income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide
large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lowerincome taxpayers.
Some highlights:
Even if tax expenditures are eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible, there would still be a shift in the tax burden of roughly $86 billion from those making over $200,000 to those making less than that amount,
...
Americans making over $1 million would see an increase in after-tax income of 4.1 percent (an $87,000 tax cut), those making between $500,000 and $1 million would see an increase of 3.2 percent (a $17,000 tax cut), and those making between $200,000 and $500,000 would see an increase of 0.8 percent (a $1,800 tax cut).
try again, they make a lot of assumptions, that Romney has not committed ot or not
We need to give everything we can to the "job creators" They deserve it more than anyone else!
Who do you think makes most of the jobs in this country? People that have the capital to start the business.
Consumers create them by creating demand. It's the middle class that drives the economy.
Of course once in business there's also profit margin. Raising taxes on businesses reduces such. Quite complex interaction.
As another poster put it;
Do you really think that the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson would be cutting massive checks to Romney if he was going to raise their taxes?
Something to think about.
As another poster put it;
Do you really think that the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson would be cutting massive checks to Romney if he was going to raise their taxes?
Something to think about.
So then why are GAtes and Soros and Bufett cutting checks to Obama? think about it. Obama's gonna lower their taxes!!!!!!!!!
Who do you think makes most of the jobs in this country? People that have the capital to start the business.
Consumers create them by creating demand. It's the middle class that drives the economy.
Once the business is marketing to the consumer, yes, but most small businesses need to have the cash to start up to get to the market place.
You're quite right as the middle class does drive the economy.
Yes, another disaster of a "plan" from Mitt.
And yet Gates shelters millions in his foundation and Buffet just doesn't bother to pay his taxes.. and Obama himself donates to his children rather than "pay a little more". Yeah.. they really think they should be paying more.As another poster put it;
Do you really think that the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson would be cutting massive checks to Romney if he was going to raise their taxes?
Something to think about.
So then why are GAtes and Soros and Bufett cutting checks to Obama? think about it. Obama's gonna lower their taxes!!!!!!!!!
Both Gates and Buffett (not sure about Soros) have stated their taxes need to be raised. They have no problem with it.
Can you quote the Koch brothers of Mr. Adelson on wanting to pay more taxes?
No? Didn't think so.
Yes, another disaster of a "plan" from Mitt.
really? ok, so does his plan cut the deduction for home mortgages? How about taxing Municipals bonds?
go ahead have a party, and when you have found the answer go back and read the cherry picked assumption laden poopy the op has linked to...
have a great day
Yes, another disaster of a "plan" from Mitt.
really? ok, so does his plan cut the deduction for home mortgages? How about taxing Municipals bonds?
go ahead have a party, and when you have found the answer go back and read the cherry picked assumption laden poopy the op has linked to...
have a great day
The Ryan Plan claims he's going to cut over $700 billion/year in "tax loopholes". Do the math. Yep, it'll take something like cutting home mortgage interest to meet those numbers. The Romney plan still fucks the middle class by again lowering taxes on those making over $200,000/year.
This is an excellent article that might make it easier for liberals to understand Romney's plan.
***************************************************************
Mathematically Possible
Correcting the false assumptions of Obama's tax gurus.
It isn't easy being the intellectual frontmen for President Obama's re-election campaign, as the boys at the Brookings-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center are discovering. Their ballyhooed study of Mitt Romney's tax plan looks worse with each new examination.
The study's biggest distortion is its raw assertion that Mr. Romney would refuse to close certain loopholes. In the appendix, the Tax Policy Center lists, among others, two giant tax deductions that it says would go untouched: the exclusion of interest on tax-exempt municipal bonds, and the exclusion of interest on life insurance savings. The study claims that Mr. Romney won't close these because they are incentives for saving and investment.
Review & Outlook: Mathematically Possible - WSJ.com
This is an excellent article that might make it easier for liberals to understand Romney's plan.
***************************************************************
Mathematically Possible
Correcting the false assumptions of Obama's tax gurus.
It isn't easy being the intellectual frontmen for President Obama's re-election campaign, as the boys at the Brookings-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center are discovering. Their ballyhooed study of Mitt Romney's tax plan looks worse with each new examination.
The study's biggest distortion is its raw assertion that Mr. Romney would refuse to close certain loopholes. In the appendix, the Tax Policy Center lists, among others, two giant tax deductions that it says would go untouched: the exclusion of interest on tax-exempt municipal bonds, and the exclusion of interest on life insurance savings. The study claims that Mr. Romney won't close these because they are incentives for saving and investment.
Review & Outlook: Mathematically Possible - WSJ.com
Don't you believe it's up to Romney to say what "loopholes" he's going to close? How about Ryan's plan, to increase revenue by over $700 billion a year, by closing loopholes.
Which loopholes? The ones that help the middle class? Or the ones that help the most profitable companies?
