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.
lol, still with this silliness
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 asked this very question last night with no real answer. Most of them are too dumb to even understand the concept/question. Look how many of them can't even address what I asked and instead preached about why the 47% need to be paying.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/254149-how-do-republicans-reconcile-this.html
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....
Good example. But give it up. You can't know the answer and not share. That wouldn't be "right".
Why are the rethugs not asking this very same question. They are the ones all worked up about those 47%.
Why do they not want to know what Mitt plans to do to make more people have some "skin in the game".
Must be becasue so many rethug voters get the Earned Income Credit. And Mittens don't want to lose them. They might figure out that voting Rethug would really be against their own self interest. And that would be bad. For Mittens.
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....
Good example. But give it up. You can't know the answer and not share. That wouldn't be "right".
Why are the rethugs not asking this very same question. They are the ones all worked up about those 47%.
Why do they not want to know what Mitt plans to do to make more people have some "skin in the game".
Must be becasue so many rethug voters get the Earned Income Credit. And Mittens don't want to lose them. They might figure out that voting Rethug would really be against their own self interest. And that would be bad. For Mittens.
The answer is,
Romney and the Republicans raison d'etre is to cut taxes for the Rich. That is their number one job duty. That is what the Rich are investing in when they 'invest' in Romney's campaign.
But they can't run a viable political campaign around only cutting taxes for the Rich. They have to run on cutting everyone's taxes, or at least whoever's left paying taxes.
They hate that, as Romney revealed on hidden camera behind closed doors, but that's the bitter pill they have to swallow, in order to get what they really want.
The only reason you hear so many conservatives around here openly griping about the poor and low and moderate income Americans paying no income tax is that these conservatives aren't running for office...
...they can afford to be honest.
lol, thank good we have bingo and the thread is over
sheeesh
Linked to the thread you started. Not a single rethug tried to answer your very logical question.
Guess we are to figure they really don't care about who pays what. And whether or not Mittens plans INCREASE the number of people getting back all they paid in. And like the one poster said; his kid gets back all his money from filing the EIC. But he hates it. Go figure.
Or is Mittens wanting to eliminate the EIC? Then he should say so, don't you rethugs think?
Linked to the thread you started. Not a single rethug tried to answer your very logical question.
Guess we are to figure they really don't care about who pays what. And whether or not Mittens plans INCREASE the number of people getting back all they paid in. And like the one poster said; his kid gets back all his money from filing the EIC. But he hates it. Go figure.
Or is Mittens wanting to eliminate the EIC? Then he should say so, don't you rethugs think?
From Wiki:
Enacted in 1975, the initially modest EIC has been expanded by tax legislation on a number of occasions, including the widely-publicized Reagan Tax Reform Act of 1986, and was further expanded in 1990, 1993, and 2001, regardless of whether the act in general raised taxes (1990, 1993), lowered taxes (2001), or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986).
Linked to the thread you started. Not a single rethug tried to answer your very logical question.
Guess we are to figure they really don't care about who pays what. And whether or not Mittens plans INCREASE the number of people getting back all they paid in. And like the one poster said; his kid gets back all his money from filing the EIC. But he hates it. Go figure.
Or is Mittens wanting to eliminate the EIC? Then he should say so, don't you rethugs think?
From Wiki:
Enacted in 1975, the initially modest EIC has been expanded by tax legislation on a number of occasions, including the widely-publicized Reagan Tax Reform Act of 1986, and was further expanded in 1990, 1993, and 2001, regardless of whether the act in general raised taxes (1990, 1993), lowered taxes (2001), or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986).
2001???? Now who was President in 2001?? Shirley to goodness you are not implying that the Rethugs in Congress gave up more tax revenue from the lower income spectrum just so the very rich could get a big tax break.
Why, that is exactly what they seem to be doing right now.
And as of yet not a single rethug on here has been able to say how this will work out for the benefit of the country.
From Wiki:
Enacted in 1975, the initially modest EIC has been expanded by tax legislation on a number of occasions, including the widely-publicized Reagan Tax Reform Act of 1986, and was further expanded in 1990, 1993, and 2001, regardless of whether the act in general raised taxes (1990, 1993), lowered taxes (2001), or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986).
2001???? Now who was President in 2001?? Shirley to goodness you are not implying that the Rethugs in Congress gave up more tax revenue from the lower income spectrum just so the very rich could get a big tax break.
Why, that is exactly what they seem to be doing right now.
And as of yet not a single rethug on here has been able to say how this will work out for the benefit of the country.
Hey man...I just report, you decide.
How can it not be beneficial? I mean you see a gazillionaire making money off of money paying 14% capital gains tax and the poor, the disabled and the retired folks paying 0% income tax, it's obvious how beneficial it would be to go after the folks paying 0% on their barely scraping by income.
Let's see...0-0=0 so there is nothing there to go after. Won't go after the gazillionaires so who does that leave AGAIN?
