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

[Skull Pilot]

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.

And you can conclusively prove that said tax cuts caused the slow down in job growth right?

And remember a correlation does not constitute proof.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

2. Why should it? The last four times taxes were lowered tax revenue dropped.

1. The breakdown of the affects of Romney's plan on after tax income:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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%.

Looks like job growth after the 2003 cuts.
What does it look like to you?

Looks like growth after the 1981 and 1986 cuts as well.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Still with the perpetual dumb act. If you eliminate tax deductions you increase the taxes paid. Broadening the tax base means that people who pay no income taxes now will be paying taxes after their deductions are eliminated which obviously is a tax increase.

 

[tjvh]

Still waiting for that response Seawytch.

 

[DiamondDave]

Nobody earning even $1 should have been excluded from income taxes in the first place

 

[DontBeStupid]

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%.

Looks like job growth after the 2003 cuts.
What does it look like to you?

Looks like growth after the 1981 and 1986 cuts as well.

I think it looks like you're trying to cherry pick your time frames. Why else would you be ignoring 2001?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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%.

Looks like job growth after the 2003 cuts.
What does it look like to you?

Looks like growth after the 1981 and 1986 cuts as well.

I think it looks like you're trying to cherry pick your time frames. Why else would you be ignoring 2001?

I didn't ignore 2001. The chart starts 1/1/2001.

 

[edthecynic]

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!

No, Willard Mitt, rhymes with ...., said the TOP marginal rate will be cut by 20%.



ROMNEY: What I say is we’re going to cut the top marginal rate across-the-board by 20 percent, and at the same time, we’re going to limit deductions and exemptions to pay for most of that and then additional growth will pay for the rest of that such that our plan does not increase the deficit.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

Revenue Neutral = Zero Sum

Does that work for you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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!

No, Willard Mitt, rhymes with ...., said the TOP marginal rate will be cut by 20%.

Romney: My tax plan can't be scored - YouTube

ROMNEY: What I say is we’re going to cut the top marginal rate across-the-board by 20 percent, and at the same time, we’re going to limit deductions and exemptions to pay for most of that and then additional growth will pay for the rest of that such that our plan does not increase the deficit.

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

See, that's the plan. Across the board.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Looks like job growth after the 2003 cuts.
What does it look like to you?

Looks like growth after the 1981 and 1986 cuts as well.

I think it looks like you're trying to cherry pick your time frames. Why else would you be ignoring 2001?

I didn't ignore 2001. The chart starts 1/1/2001.

But you're looking at job growth starting in 2003 as if no tax cuts occurred in 2001. That's what you're ignoring.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Revenue Neutral = Zero Sum

Does that work for you?

So he didn't actually say zero sum.
Thanks for your belated honesty.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

Revenue Neutral = Zero Sum

Does that work for you?

So he didn't actually say zero sum.
Thanks for your belated honesty.

I never said he did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think it looks like you're trying to cherry pick your time frames. Why else would you be ignoring 2001?

I didn't ignore 2001. The chart starts 1/1/2001.

But you're looking at job growth starting in 2003 as if no tax cuts occurred in 2001. That's what you're ignoring.

The 2001 cuts were phased in and many were useless, targeted cuts, similiar to Obama's failed tax cuts in his "stimulus".
2003 was when the cuts were accelerated and included dividend and capital gains cuts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you weren't so ******* stupid, you would know that tax receipts are NOT a zero sum game, and that in fact in our history a cut in tax rates for the rich has not only been revenue neutral but in FOUR instances has increases Federal tax receipts to RECORD LEVELS.

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?

You said it right here.

 

[edthecynic]

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

No, Willard Mitt, rhymes with ...., said the TOP marginal rate will be cut by 20%.

Romney: My tax plan can't be scored - YouTube

ROMNEY: What I say is we’re going to cut the top marginal rate across-the-board by 20 percent, and at the same time, we’re going to limit deductions and exemptions to pay for most of that and then additional growth will pay for the rest of that such that our plan does not increase the deficit.

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

See, that's the plan. Across the board.

You gotta love and admire how CON$ can shamelessly lie in the face of both a video and transcript where he clearly says it is the TOP marginal rate that is cut "across the board."

 

[DontBeStupid]

If you weren't so ******* stupid, you would know that tax receipts are NOT a zero sum game, and that in fact in our history a cut in tax rates for the rich has not only been revenue neutral but in FOUR instances has increases Federal tax receipts to RECORD LEVELS.

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?

You said it right here.

/sigh

I was simplifying for Sniper who was having trouble grasping the concept of revenue neutral. As you can clearly see, there are no quotes. I was never quoting Romney nor did I ever proclaim to.

But hey, if you want to sit here and cry about semantics all day, we can. Doesn't change your being wrong on this topic. And it doesn't change the fact that not you, nor anyone else is even attempting to show how Romney can lower tax rates on upper incomes, not raise them for anyone and still have the same revenue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, Willard Mitt, rhymes with ...., said the TOP marginal rate will be cut by 20%.

Romney: My tax plan can't be scored - YouTube

ROMNEY: What I say is we’re going to cut the top marginal rate across-the-board by 20 percent, and at the same time, we’re going to limit deductions and exemptions to pay for most of that and then additional growth will pay for the rest of that such that our plan does not increase the deficit.

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

See, that's the plan. Across the board.

You gotta love and admire how CON$ can shamelessly lie in the face of both a video and transcript where he clearly says it is the TOP marginal rate that is cut "across the board."

Tax

Lie? I took that line right off his website.
Click the link yourself, you'll see.

 

[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?

You said it right here.

/sigh

I was simplifying for Sniper who was having trouble grasping the concept of revenue neutral. As you can clearly see, there are no quotes. I was never quoting Romney nor did I ever proclaim to.

But hey, if you want to sit here and cry about semantics all day, we can. Doesn't change your being wrong on this topic. And it doesn't change the fact that not you, nor anyone else is even attempting to show how Romney can lower tax rates on upper incomes, not raise them for anyone and still have the same revenue.

Well, I could explain broadening the base and supply-side incentives, but that would probably go over your head.