Why aren't Republicans talking about Mitt Romney's "Tax Plan". Think Ryan on steroids

R

rdean

Guest
The Romney plan would reduce federal tax revenues substantially. TPC estimates that on a static basis, the Romney plan would lower federal tax liability by $600 billion in calendar year 2015 compared with current law, roughly a 16 percent cut in total projected revenue. Relative to a current policy baseline, the reduction in liability would be roughly $180 billion in calendar year 2015.

The Romney plan would change the distribution of the federal tax burden

TPC Tax Topics | romney-plan

But much of the largess goes to those with the highest incomes. Households making more than $1 million would get an average tax cut of almost $300,000, largely because, as owners of capital, they’d receive the bulk of the benefit of Romney’s very generous corporate tax reductions. While those making $1 million-plus pay about 20 percent of all federal taxes, they’d receive more than 28 percent of Romney’s tax cuts.

Compared to that already-generous law, the average tax cut for all households shrinks from $3,500 to about $1,000 and a sizable number of low-income families would see their taxes go up.

For instance, about 15 percent of those in the $10,000 to $20,000 income group would get an average tax cut of about $140, but 20 percent would get hit with an average tax increase of $1,000, mostly because Romney would bring back the less generous versions of those refundable child and earned income credits.

About one-third of those in $40,000 to $50,000 group would get a tax cut that would average about $400, but about one-six would face a tax increase of nearly twice as much.

Almost everyone who makes more than $1 million would get a tax cut averaging roughly $150,000. As a group, they’d receive nearly half the benefit of Romney’s tax plan.

Romney's Tax Plan: Big Benefits For The Wealthy And A Bigger Deficit - Forbes

---------------------------------------------

In another post, someone who applauded Obama getting Bin Laden said no matter what, he was voting for Mitt.

I said, "You don't want to vote for who keeps you safe but who wants to screw you over" and he wrote back that didn't make sense.

Then I realized, people don't understand Mitt's "Tax Plan". Come on people. He's a "vulture capitalist". Why on earth do you think he would help the middle class? His entire career has been to screw them out of money. His company even took government subsidies and left people holding the bag over and over again.

But for some strange reason, the Republican "middle class" doesn't see themselves as "middle class". They don't believe that policies that will screw over the middle class will affect them.
 
If you have a lot of income, you will get the most benefit.
If you have a little income you will get a little benefit.
Duh.

Thank you, RDean. Your blinding flash of the obvious is appreciated.
 
If you have a lot of income, you will get the most benefit.
If you have a little income you will get a little benefit.
Duh.

Thank you, RDean. Your blinding flash of the obvious is appreciated.

So that's how it works. Thanks, now I understand.

But following your reasoning, if Mitt made the most, shouldn't his tax percentage be the most?

You know, "BIG" number with "BIG" number?
 
Keep reading. The tax increase on the working class is astronomical. Higher even than Ryan's. Also higher is the debt ceiling increase.

Oh, but there's a little rebate for the peons of something like $54 the first year.

Apparently the Repub middle class actually believes they will someday be part of the 1%. Go figure.
 
Put simply,

the Romney plan raises taxes on those with a lower than average income and cuts taxes for those with a higher than average income.
 
The GOP's one trick pony tax cutting obsession has ironically backed them into a corner of their own construction.

From Reagan on, the GOP has always been able to package their tax cuts for the Rich (which is their real motivation) in a politically saleable way because they included tax cuts for the not-rich.

But over time, they've managed to push taxes down so far for the not-rich that half of Americans now pay no income tax.

That leaves the GOP now trying to push tax cut schemes that are only for the Rich, because, for the not-rich, as the song says,

they've gone about as far as they can go...

Tax cuts for the Rich only are a hard sell.:lol:
 
The GOP's one trick pony tax cutting obsession has ironically backed them into a corner of their own construction.

From Reagan on, the GOP has always been able to package their tax cuts for the Rich (which is their real motivation) in a politically saleable way because they included tax cuts for the not-rich.

But over time, they've managed to push taxes down so far for the not-rich that half of Americans now pay no income tax.

That leaves the GOP now trying to push tax cut schemes that are only for the Rich, because, for the not-rich, as the song says,

they've gone about as far as they can go...

Tax cuts for the Rich only are a hard sell.:lol:

Why not do what Ron paul is suggesting and cut to 0% for the income tax? While taxing all the goods coming from China and all inports. Send everything besides defense, state, and what is giving within the consitution the states?

Wouldn't that be better.
 
Last edited:
If Mitt Romney is elected, his first official act will be to DROWN THIS PUPPY!!!!

Cute_Puppy.jpg
 
If you have a lot of income, you will get the most benefit.
If you have a little income you will get a little benefit.
Duh.

Thank you, RDean. Your blinding flash of the obvious is appreciated.

So that's how it works. Thanks, now I understand.

But following your reasoning, if Mitt made the most, shouldn't his tax percentage be the most?

You know, "BIG" number with "BIG" number?

No, idiot.
Percentage is not the same thing as gross amount. How much money did Mitt pay out in taxes? Probably more than you make in a year.
 
Just because Romney stole Ryans plan does not take away from the fact that it's still Romney, and he is still a Rino that cannot be trusted.
 
If you have a lot of income, you will get the most benefit.
If you have a little income you will get a little benefit.
Duh.

Thank you, RDean. Your blinding flash of the obvious is appreciated.

So that's how it works. Thanks, now I understand.

But following your reasoning, if Mitt made the most, shouldn't his tax percentage be the most?

You know, "BIG" number with "BIG" number?

No, idiot.
Percentage is not the same thing as gross amount. How much money did Mitt pay out in taxes? Probably more than you make in a year.

His speaking fees alone is more than you make in 7 years. Assuming you make 50 grand a year, which I seriously doubt.
 

Forum List

Back
Top