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

[Full-Auto]

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.

Everyone you have argued with is a known liar...................


From your link.....................

Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

Actually, I'd love to hear how you think broadening the base, having more people paying taxes, doesn't in fact count as an increase in taxes.

 

[Conservative]

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.

He knows he said it. He's just being stupid. As usual.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

/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.

Actually, I'd love to hear how you think broadening the base, having more people paying taxes, doesn't in fact count as an increase in taxes.

How does having unemployed people get a job and start paying taxes count as a tax increase? How does more business startups count as a tax increase? How does overseas companies opening operations here, to take advantage of lower corporate rates, count as a tax increase? You tell me.

 

[Conservative]

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.

You're a lying sack of whale piss. You are actually trying to claim that this quote...

Romney said his plan is zero sum

...is not a Romney quote, and that you never proclaimed Romney said it?

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, you're full of shit. When you say 'someone said X', you are proclaiming they said X, you incredible moron.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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

Actually, I'd love to hear how you think broadening the base, having more people paying taxes, doesn't in fact count as an increase in taxes.

How does having unemployed people get a job and start paying taxes count as a tax increase? How does more business startups count as a tax increase? How does overseas companies opening operations here, to take advantage of lower corporate rates, count as a tax increase? You tell me.

And how does Romney's plan accomplish that?

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

You're a lying sack of whale piss. You are actually trying to claim that this quote...

Romney said his plan is zero sum

...is not a Romney quote, and that you never proclaimed Romney said it?

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, you're full of shit. When you say 'someone said X', you are proclaiming they said X, you incredible moron.

Romney said his plan won't raise tax revenue.
Romney said his plan won't lower tax revenue.
Romney said his plan would be zero sum.
Romney said his plan would leave revenue unchanged.
Romney said his plan is "revenue neutral".

These are all true and mean the exact same thing.

Quit being a coward, and try to stay on topic.

 

[edthecynic]

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%.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsTIIjKsmZU]Romney: My tax plan can't be scored - YouTube[/ame]

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.

You have both the video and the transcript clarifying that it is the TOP marginal rate that will be cut across the board, but still you try to cling to the most vague and misleading interpretation of across the board. Truly a testament to your dishonesty.

 

[Conservative]

/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.

You're a lying sack of whale piss. You are actually trying to claim that this quote...

Romney said his plan is zero sum

...is not a Romney quote, and that you never proclaimed Romney said it?

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, you're full of shit. When you say 'someone said X', you are proclaiming they said X, you incredible moron.

Romney said his plan won't raise tax revenue.
Romney said his plan won't lower tax revenue.
Romney said his plan would be zero sum.
Romney said his plan would leave revenue unchanged.
Romney said his plan is "revenue neutral".

These are all true and mean the exact same thing.

Quit being a coward, and try to stay on topic.

you claim Roney said something... then say you never claimed he said it... it is pointed out to you that you DID in fact say it... you lie about it... I call you... and somehow I am a coward?

You're pathetic.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You're a lying sack of whale piss. You are actually trying to claim that this quote...

...is not a Romney quote, and that you never proclaimed Romney said it?

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, you're full of shit. When you say 'someone said X', you are proclaiming they said X, you incredible moron.

Romney said his plan won't raise tax revenue.
Romney said his plan won't lower tax revenue.
Romney said his plan would be zero sum.
Romney said his plan would leave revenue unchanged.
Romney said his plan is "revenue neutral".

These are all true and mean the exact same thing.

Quit being a coward, and try to stay on topic.

you claim Roney said something... then say you never claimed he said it... it is pointed out to you that you DID in fact say it... you lie about it... I call you... and somehow I am a coward?

You're pathetic.

heh heh Anything to not talk about the topic huh?

Funny.

 

[Conservative]

Romney said his plan won't raise tax revenue.
Romney said his plan won't lower tax revenue.
Romney said his plan would be zero sum.
Romney said his plan would leave revenue unchanged.
Romney said his plan is "revenue neutral".

These are all true and mean the exact same thing.

Quit being a coward, and try to stay on topic.

you claim Roney said something... then say you never claimed he said it... it is pointed out to you that you DID in fact say it... you lie about it... I call you... and somehow I am a coward?

You're pathetic.

heh heh Anything to not talk about the topic huh?

Funny.

why talk abouit the tpoic wioth someone who liesw about their posts? It's pointless. Like your existence.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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:

1) Where is the research to back up the data in that chart? No link? I told you I would like to verify anything you post. That could be a chart about anything for all I know (and the 2011 date on it makes me suspicious).

2) This is why it should

you can verify the data in my chart from George Mason univeristy here Tax Rates vs. Tax Revenues | Mercatus

 

[g5000]

Let's say we eliminate ALL tax expenditures. No more mortgage interest rate deduction, no more child tax credits, etc.

This would increase revenues, certainly.

Let's say we then cut everyone's tax rate by 20 percent. If you were paying 33%, you now pay 26.4%.

The question then becomes, will you be paying more or less of your income to the federal government than you do now?

That question can only be answered by asking if you currently get more tax expenditures than you would get from a 20 percent cut.

Independent analysis has shown that the middle and lower incomes currently get more tax expenditures than they would get from a 20 percent cut, while the reverse is true for the wealthiest Americans.

So the rich would end up better off, and everyone else would end up worse off, tax-wise.

However, if we eliminate the mortgage interest tax deduction, the prices of houses would drop dramatically, thereby making them more accessible.

The mortgage interest tax deduction is an extremely regressive tax deduction.


There are lots of angles to consider. Not just looking only at the final tab on your tax bill. You also have to examine the consequences of tax reform, such as the drop in the prices of houses example.

But...the odds of Congress going along with eliminating the extremely popular mortgage interest rate deduction is a long shot to say the least. Americans just don't understand anything involving more than two moving parts.

So this means our collective stupidity would result in getting most of the downside and very little of the positive consequences.

Still, it should be done. We need some serious leadership on this. It must be done.

Too bad Mitt sucks at communication. He really, really, really sucks at it.

I think he sucks at math, too. More than he sucks at communication.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

He isn't raising taxes on anyone in the middle class and you have yet to provide proof of such a claim from within Romney's plans. Why don't you back that up with Romney's plan for me? If you can I'll say you are right.

I'm not sure why you think its dumb for me to not believe something you have yet to prove.

 

[occupied]

If republicans successfully sell a middle class tax hike to pay for further tax cuts for the wealthy they will know without a doubt that they will be able to sell anything, they should start using the old conman term "mark" instead of "voter" to describe their base. BTW I have a wonderful toll bridge investment opportunity if anyone is interested.

 

[g5000]

The reason Romney’s plan doesn’t work is very simple. The size of the tax cut he’s proposing for the rich is larger than all of the tax expenditures that go to the rich put together. As such, it is mathematically impossible for him to keep his promise to make sure the top one percent keeps paying the same or more.

“Families with children currently receive 57 percent of the available tax expenditures examined in this exercise but 23 percent of the revenue reductions. Thus a reform that imposed an across-the-board reduction in tax expenditures would increase taxes much more on families with children than on childless adults.”

Nine takeaways on Romney’s tax plan

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

If republicans successfully sell a middle class tax hike to pay for further tax cuts for the wealthy they will know without a doubt that they will be able to sell anything, they should start using the old conman term "mark" instead of "voter" to describe their base. BTW I have a wonderful toll bridge investment opportunity if anyone is interested.

What is this mythical middle class tax hike you claim Romeny has proposed?

 

[edthecynic]

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.

He isn't raising taxes on anyone in the middle class and you have yet to provide proof of such a claim from within Romney's plans. Why don't you back that up with Romney's plan for me? If you can I'll say you are right.

I'm not sure why you think its dumb for me to not believe something you have yet to prove.

I already posted the video and transcript where he says he is going to limit deductions and exemptions. Limiting deductions and exemptions causes people to pay more in taxes. Causing people to pay more in taxes is a tax increase.

i don't think you are dumb, I think you are PLAYING dumb to avoid admitting that limiting deductions and exemptions raises taxes.

 

[occupied]

If republicans successfully sell a middle class tax hike to pay for further tax cuts for the wealthy they will know without a doubt that they will be able to sell anything, they should start using the old conman term "mark" instead of "voter" to describe their base. BTW I have a wonderful toll bridge investment opportunity if anyone is interested.

What is this mythical middle class tax hike you claim Romeny has proposed?

Where have you been? If the tax burden is successfully shifted downward as republicans have long longed to achieve, where do you think it will go? It's not like the poor have anything to spare after states have already hiked all manner of fees, sales and excise taxes.

 

[buckeye45_73]

If republicans successfully sell a middle class tax hike to pay for further tax cuts for the wealthy they will know without a doubt that they will be able to sell anything, they should start using the old conman term "mark" instead of "voter" to describe their base. BTW I have a wonderful toll bridge investment opportunity if anyone is interested.

What is this mythical middle class tax hike you claim Romeny has proposed?

Where have you been? If the tax burden is successfully shifted downward as republicans have long longed to achieve, where do you think it will go? It's not like the poor have anything to spare after states have already hiked all manner of fees, sales and excise taxes.

WAIT lets look at this: ARe you saying local and state governments are bleeding poor people? Yet you still advocate electing these bloodsuckers to local and state office, for example, Chicago controls Illinois, so if you live in Illinois, Cook county has the highest taxes.....and yes it is bleeding people dry, but they aint electing republicans...