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

[SniperFire]

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%.

You are obfuscating. Said tax policies lead to 52 consecutive months of job growth. The credit bomb was a separate issue, and Bush was one of the few in America who actually tried to fix it before it melted down.

Plus, said tax cuts enabled us to extract a trillion more in tax receipts from the evil rich versus what Clinton got from them.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

Don't Be Stupid has dug a hole for himself and keeps digging.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If this is Romney's plan, could someone point out why taxes would increase on anyone? I'm not seeing where any rates are raised.
*****************

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)


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

I asked that in this thread... no answers yet.

Still waiting

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.

Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates

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

 

[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?

cricket... cricket... cricket...

 

[there4eyeM]

"New Independent Study Show Romney plan would cut taxes for the rich..
While increasing them for everyone else."

The people who like Reagan so much should be happy Romney is so similar.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

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.

Clearly the answer lies with increasing tax revenues by expanding the tax base, not by raising rates on the few...........This is accomplished by promoting a business friendly environment, not a hostile one.... It aint f---ing rocket science...........

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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)

Which of these points raises taxes on the 95%?

 

[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.

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.

You gotta just love the Right's perpetual dumb act when confronted with the truth. Over and over Willard Mitt, rhymes with ...., has said he would offset his tax cuts with eliminating deductions and closing loopholes which would simplify the tax code and broaden the base, which you now pretend to have never heard. He, of course, has refused to say exactly what deductions and loopholes (the interview on Meet The Press especially stands out), which in itself has also sparked much media commentary, which again you pretend to have never heard. So studies have tried to see if eliminating every possible deduction and loophole would make his tax cuts revenue neutral as he claims, and they don't.

Here is Forbes' take on it, and Forbes can hardly be passed off as Liberal!

Romney Tax Plan Devastated By Non-Partisan Tax Policy Center-But Is The Tax Policy Center Really Non-Partisan? - Forbes

Before you presume that this must be some liberal hatchet job to be dismissed out of hand (we will explore that possibility in a moment), there a few things you will want to know about the study—and then you can jump to your conclusions.

For starters, the report keys its results on Governor Romney’s promise that any tax cuts provided will be ‘revenue neutral’—meaning that every dollar he cuts in taxes will be paid for by either increasing revenue from some other source or cutting expenses somewhere else on the balance sheet.

While Romney has gone on record as saying that he will produce the revenue neutral result by eliminating deductions and tax code loopholes, he has—to date—declined to be specific in stating exactly what deductions and loopholes he will do away with to make it all work.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

So you think Romney is lying then when he says his plan is zero sum.

Where did he say "zero sum"?
Be as precise as you can.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

Taxes on Wealthy 5% = W
Taxes on the Lower 95% = L

Currently, by definition:

W + L = Total Income Tax Revenue (T)

Or simply

W + L = T

Since Romney has said T will not change but he will lower W, then by definition:

(W-1) + (L+1) = T

Q.E.D.

Taxes on the Lower 95% go up.



You're welcome.

 

[edthecynic]

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?

Notice how the deliberate deceivers always have to create a Straw Man to debate!!!!

No what has been clearly and unmistakenly said is that eliminating deductions and closing loopholes will NOT offset enough of the tax cuts to make his tax plan revenue neutral.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Taxes on Wealthy 5% = W
Taxes on the Lower 95% = L

Currently, by definition:

W + L = Total Income Tax Revenue (T)

Or simply

W + L = T

Since Romney has said T will not change but he will lower W, then by definition:

(W-1) + (L+1) = T

Q.E.D.

Taxes on the Lower 95% go up.



You're welcome.

Since Romney has said T will not change but he will lower L, then by definition:

(W+1) + (L-1) = T

Q.E.D.

Taxes on the Lower 95% go down.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

Taxes on Wealthy 5% = W
Taxes on the Lower 95% = L

Currently, by definition:

W + L = Total Income Tax Revenue (T)

Or simply

W + L = T

Since Romney has said T will not change but he will lower W, then by definition:

(W-1) + (L+1) = T

Q.E.D.

Taxes on the Lower 95% go up.



You're welcome.

Since Romney has said T will not change but he will lower L, then by definition:

(W+1) + (L-1) = T

Q.E.D.

Taxes on the Lower 95% go down.

You are lying.

Romney has not said he will lower taxes for the lower 95%. If you believe he has, feel free to link to his plan showing that.

edit:

Even if he has proposed lowering the bottom tax rates, that gives:

(W-1) + (L-1) = T-2

Which means, by definition:

(W-1) + (L-1) =/= T

Which means Romney is lying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Taxes on Wealthy 5% = W
Taxes on the Lower 95% = L

Currently, by definition:

W + L = Total Income Tax Revenue (T)

Or simply

W + L = T

Since Romney has said T will not change but he will lower W, then by definition:

(W-1) + (L+1) = T

Q.E.D.

Taxes on the Lower 95% go up.



You're welcome.

Since Romney has said T will not change but he will lower L, then by definition:

(W+1) + (L-1) = T

Q.E.D.

Taxes on the Lower 95% go down.

You are lying.

Romney has not said he will lower taxes for the lower 95%. If you believe he has, feel free to link to his plan showing that.

edit:

Even if he has proposed lowering the bottom tax rates, that gives:

(W-1) + (L-1) = T-2

Which means, by definition:

(W-1) + (L-1) =/= T

Which means Romney is lying.

Even if he has proposed lowering the bottom tax rates,

Even if he has?
Haven't you read the plan?

 

[tjvh]

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.

People like swallow only care about hurting those mean ol' rich people whom life dealt a better hand.

It just ain't fair, he figures!

A 3% increase in income over $250K isn't going to hurt them. Increasing the taxes on an average family by $2,000 a year WILL.

Why should someone more successful be forced to subsidize someone less successful by paying 3% more than that unsuccessful person does? Please... Enlighten me.

 

[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:

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.

You gotta just love the Right's perpetual dumb act when confronted with the truth. Over and over Willard Mitt, rhymes with ...., has said he would offset his tax cuts with eliminating deductions and closing loopholes which would simplify the tax code and broaden the base, which you now pretend to have never heard. He, of course, has refused to say exactly what deductions and loopholes (the interview on Meet The Press especially stands out), which in itself has also sparked much media commentary, which again you pretend to have never heard. So studies have tried to see if eliminating every possible deduction and loophole would make his tax cuts revenue neutral as he claims, and they don't.

Here is Forbes' take on it, and Forbes can hardly be passed off as Liberal!

Romney Tax Plan Devastated By Non-Partisan Tax Policy Center-But Is The Tax Policy Center Really Non-Partisan? - Forbes

Before you presume that this must be some liberal hatchet job to be dismissed out of hand (we will explore that possibility in a moment), there a few things you will want to know about the study—and then you can jump to your conclusions.

For starters, the report keys its results on Governor Romney’s promise that any tax cuts provided will be ‘revenue neutral’—meaning that every dollar he cuts in taxes will be paid for by either increasing revenue from some other source or cutting expenses somewhere else on the balance sheet.

While Romney has gone on record as saying that he will produce the revenue neutral result by eliminating deductions and tax code loopholes, he has—to date—declined to be specific in stating exactly what deductions and loopholes he will do away with to make it all work.

You still did not provide ANY proof that his plans include a tax increase on anyone, including the middle class.

I'll wait for you to stop floundering and point to the part in his public tax plan that does as you claim, raise taxes on the middle class.

I never claimed it was a "liberal hatchet job" I just said the article was flat out wrong either by mistake or intentionally as I'm not sure which it was. Romney's tax plans DO NOT include tax increases for the middle class. If you think I'm wrong please provide LINKED evidence within the plan so I can read it myself. If you can do this I will change my opinion and comments.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Since Romney has said T will not change but he will lower L, then by definition:

(W+1) + (L-1) = T

Q.E.D.

Taxes on the Lower 95% go down.

You are lying.

Romney has not said he will lower taxes for the lower 95%. If you believe he has, feel free to link to his plan showing that.

edit:

Even if he has proposed lowering the bottom tax rates, that gives:

(W-1) + (L-1) = T-2

Which means, by definition:

(W-1) + (L-1) =/= T

Which means Romney is lying.

Even if he has proposed lowering the bottom tax rates,

Even if he has?
Haven't you read the plan?

I did. Did you? Did you read the article that analyzed the plan and found:

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.

How can you say Romney plans to cut taxes for the bottom 95% when he has no plan to do that? And the plan he does has raises taxes.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Taxes on Wealthy 5% = W
Taxes on the Lower 95% = L

Currently, by definition:

W + L = Total Income Tax Revenue (T)

Or simply

W + L = T

Since Romney has said T will not change but he will lower W, then by definition:

(W-1) + (L+1) = T

Q.E.D.

Taxes on the Lower 95% go up.



You're welcome.

2 things:

1) You still haven't shown me the actual part of Romney's plan that raises anyone's taxes
2) your forumula doesn't take into account the increased tax revenues from the increased economic activity (which is taxed) lowering taxes creates.

 

[Full-Auto]

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".

Lets see, taxes are rising under Obama and they might under mitt.

One has no intention of reducing spending while the other does.....


Say good bye Obama...........

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are lying.

Romney has not said he will lower taxes for the lower 95%. If you believe he has, feel free to link to his plan showing that.

edit:

Even if he has proposed lowering the bottom tax rates, that gives:

(W-1) + (L-1) = T-2

Which means, by definition:

(W-1) + (L-1) =/= T

Which means Romney is lying.

Even if he has proposed lowering the bottom tax rates,

Even if he has?
Haven't you read the plan?

I did. Did you? Did you read the article that analyzed the plan and found:

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.

How can you say Romney plans to cut taxes for the bottom 95% when he has no plan to do that? And the plan he does has raises taxes.

Every bracket is cut by 20%.
Brackets don't work at the bottom? LOL!