Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

So what is the actual stimulative effect of a "tax cut" if it isn't really a tax cut?

+3
ZVUGKTUBM
Margin Call
boards of FL
7 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

[quote="Lurch"]
Nekochan wrote:
Lurch wrote:I've been watching him say enough to know he's FoS..
They're playin it on all channels..

What little snippet did you happen to see replayed today that you think Romney is FOS about?

I've been listening to Both of them tell lies but romney is the Biggest flip flopper out there.. I don't have time to name all of them right now because I'm going for a ride..

I'll side with Seaoat.. M/C and Boards on this one.. They called it just like I see it.. They're putting up links with Facts and the ABO crowd just can't see it.. 3 out of four of us are for Johnson by the way..[/quote]

I'm leaning heavily that way. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary, and I agree with Johson's platform.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.

Then he is increasing taxes for the wealthy if he reduces deductions.He implicitly said he wouldn't do that and that's why he doesn't make sense.

Then I think you don't understand what he said. He said that he would
1. lower RATES
2. do away with deductions over a certain income
3. give the middle class tax relief while not lowering the overall amount of taxes for the wealthy
4. implement a plan whereby a combination of reducing deductions for higher incomes PLUS getting more people back to work who will be paying taxes will increase the tax revenues the government collects.

Now, I don't know how solid Romney's plan is or how well it will work but Obama's plans have NOT worked and I am willing to give Romney a try. I just keep reading people claim that Romney said things last night that he didn't say. So let's set the record straight about what Romney actually said, regarding taxes.

Two questions,Neko.When you do away w/ a tax deduction what happens?A. You pay more taxes.Do you get this? Second, where are the jobs from the Bush tax cuts that he says his tax cuts will create more jobs? Do you see this is the same old rhetoric as before?

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreams, 1.First of all, Romney proposes to lower all tax rates, across the board. All rates would be lower, including for middle class and wealthy. 2. For those making above a certain income, some deductions would be eliminated or maybe gradually reduced/done away with so that high income people would not be able to take all those deductions BUT instead, they would pay at a lower rate. But for the middle and lower income, the deductions would not be eliminated. So the middle class gets A. a tax rate cut and B. they keep their deductions.
I don't know the details of this plan and 2 minutes is not enough time for Romney to explain details, but this is the outline of what Romney proposed.

About jobs, Romney proposes that by lowering the tax rate (while keeping deductions for the middle class), families will have more money to spend. Plus he proposes that reforming Obamacare and lowering the tax rate for small business owners will stimulate job creation. And in turn, with more people working, the government will in fact collect more in taxes.

Now, maybe Romney is wrong. Maybe he's totally wrong. Maybe he has no idea what he's talking about. But Obama hasn't much room to talk because he has not delivered on his promises from 2008. But at least people should get their facts right when they are quoting what Romney said (or what Obama said, for that matter). Because Romney didn't say a lot of the stuff that he's been accused of saying.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:Dreams, 1.First of all, Romney proposes to lower all tax rates, across the board. All rates would be lower, including for middle class and wealthy. 2. For those making above a certain income, some deductions would be eliminated or maybe gradually reduced/done away with so that high income people would not be able to take all those deductions BUT instead, they would pay at a lower rate. But for the middle and lower income, the deductions would not be eliminated. So the middle class gets A. a tax rate cut and B. they keep their deductions.
I don't know the details of this plan and 2 minutes is not enough time for Romney to explain details, but this is the outline of what Romney proposed.

About jobs, Romney proposes that by lowering the tax rate (while keeping deductions for the middle class), families will have more money to spend. Plus he proposes that reforming Obamacare and lowering the tax rate for small business owners will stimulate job creation. And in turn, with more people working, the government will in fact collect more in taxes.

Now, maybe Romney is wrong. Maybe he's totally wrong. Maybe he has no idea what he's talking about. But Obama hasn't much room to talk because he has not delivered on his promises from 2008. But at least people should get their facts right when they are quoting what Romney said (or what Obama said, for that matter). Because Romney didn't say a lot of the stuff that he's been accused of saying.

My point is the tax rate has been lowered and are about to go back up in Jan. when the Bush tax cuts expire. It has not stimulated job growth much. People should get their facts straight about all the lies about Obama too but they won't.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Nekochan wrote:Dreams, 1.First of all, Romney proposes to lower all tax rates, across the board. All rates would be lower, including for middle class and wealthy. 2. For those making above a certain income, some deductions would be eliminated or maybe gradually reduced/done away with so that high income people would not be able to take all those deductions BUT instead, they would pay at a lower rate. But for the middle and lower income, the deductions would not be eliminated. So the middle class gets A. a tax rate cut and B. they keep their deductions.
I don't know the details of this plan and 2 minutes is not enough time for Romney to explain details, but this is the outline of what Romney proposed.

About jobs, Romney proposes that by lowering the tax rate (while keeping deductions for the middle class), families will have more money to spend. Plus he proposes that reforming Obamacare and lowering the tax rate for small business owners will stimulate job creation. And in turn, with more people working, the government will in fact collect more in taxes. Now, maybe Romney is wrong. Maybe he's totally wrong. Maybe he has no idea what he's talking about. But Obama hasn't much room to talk because he has not delivered on his promises from 2008. But at least people should get their facts right when they are quoting what Romney said (or what Obama said, for that matter). Because Romney didn't say a lot of the stuff that he's been accused of saying.

When does government revenue increase enough to erase a $1.3 trillion annual deficit? Answer: Likely never. Especially when Romney speaks of nearly doubling the Navy's annual ship-building rate and radically increasing defense spending across the board. Like Seaoat points out; Romney's numbers don't add up.

I know Ron Paul eschewed increasing tax rates, but he was vociferous about trimming the deficit--$1 Trillion in the first year after he was sworn in. Everything was on the table, too. But, Big Government/Empire loving Republicans could not get behind Mr. Paul, because he would have ended the wars and rolled back the Empire as a part of his deficit-cutting strategy, which also would have targeted the Left's beloved social programs.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

2seaoat



These discussions are good. There are real answers in the middle. We need to care about every American, yet we need to pay our bills. Each of us are going to have to pay more taxes, yet proportionately we cannot allow the designed wealth transfer to continue. Demand drives our economy....empty stores and broken dreams do not put dollars in average American's pockets......jobs put resources in folks pockets. Revenue neutral proposals without massive job creation tax credits cannot get the job done. We can all pay more taxes if we have patriotic leadership which is not pandering to their special interest bases. Make fun of my vote for Johnson, but if each of us learn the issues, have integrity, and discuss things with our country in our hearts......this country will heal......the tax cuts being discussed are simply not honest.....I am a Republican....I will never vote for President Obama, and if you heard the debate and the digression of talking about teachers you know my core complaint.....but Mitt Romney is dangerous.....he is whipped cream on a pile of dung.....and you need to get beyond the whipped cream.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:Dreams, 1.First of all, Romney proposes to lower all tax rates, across the board. All rates would be lower, including for middle class and wealthy. 2. For those making above a certain income, some deductions would be eliminated or maybe gradually reduced/done away with so that high income people would not be able to take all those deductions BUT instead, they would pay at a lower rate. But for the middle and lower income, the deductions would not be eliminated. So the middle class gets A. a tax rate cut and B. they keep their deductions.
I don't know the details of this plan and 2 minutes is not enough time for Romney to explain details, but this is the outline of what Romney proposed.

About jobs, Romney proposes that by lowering the tax rate (while keeping deductions for the middle class), families will have more money to spend. Plus he proposes that reforming Obamacare and lowering the tax rate for small business owners will stimulate job creation. And in turn, with more people working, the government will in fact collect more in taxes.

Now, maybe Romney is wrong. Maybe he's totally wrong. Maybe he has no idea what he's talking about. But Obama hasn't much room to talk because he has not delivered on his promises from 2008. But at least people should get their facts right when they are quoting what Romney said (or what Obama said, for that matter). Because Romney didn't say a lot of the stuff that he's been accused of saying.

Here's another thing.You take someone who makes a million dollars and gets a 20% tax deduction.That's $200,000.Do you think those people get
$200,000 in tax credits from the IRS that Romney is going to cut out?Of course not but take 20 % out of a middle income person and that hurts.The rich win again.

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:If we could get past Romney's smoke and mirrors game at last night's debate, we might find the answers!

Seems to me that it was President Barack Hussein Obama who was wishing he hadn't thrown his mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright under the bus so he could muster up a prayer FOR smoke and mirrors so he could just disappear off stage.

Markle

Markle

reaper1948 wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
reaper1948 wrote:Which one of the jokers has proposed doing away with the mortgage tax credit?


Romney.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/mitt-romney-suggests-cutting-mortgage-interest-deduction-on-eve-of-presidential-debate-1.4066809

Yep, but he will help the middle class who hold most of the mortgages.

You know 3 or 4 months ago, well before he picked Ryan I was leaning towards him but I just can't see it and there is absolutely no one that can convince me he will help the middle class.

The solution for the underwater mortgages, foreclosures and short sales has been drawn out and delayed by President Barack Hussein Obama for now over 4 years. The solution was simple, implementation...not so easy. We could have been on our way to recovery long ago.

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.

Then he is increasing taxes for the wealthy if he reduces deductions.He implicitly said he wouldn't do that and that's why he doesn't make sense.

Then I think you don't understand what he said. He said that he would
1. lower RATES
2. do away with deductions over a certain income
3. give the middle class tax relief while not lowering the overall amount of taxes for the wealthy
4. implement a plan whereby a combination of reducing deductions for higher incomes PLUS getting more people back to work who will be paying taxes will increase the tax revenues the government collects.

Now, I don't know how solid Romney's plan is or how well it will work but Obama's plans have NOT worked and I am willing to give Romney a try. I just keep reading people claim that Romney said things last night that he didn't say. So let's set the record straight about what Romney actually said, regarding taxes.

I think the reason folks can't put a finger on what Romney means is because everything he said was nothing but doubletalk.

He is an Establishment candidate. He will not change anything that the bankers who rule us don't want changed. Obama is also an Establishment candidate. Wall street wins if either of these guys is elected.

Romney won't significantly reduce Obama's deficit, either. He can't if he is going to make war on Iran and greatly increase military spending on his watch, while doing all of the tax gimmickry he double-talked us about.

Try doing a bit of research into how many former Goldman Sachs top executives are employed by the...President Barack Hussein Obama administration.

Markle

Markle

Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.

Then he is increasing taxes for the wealthy if he reduces deductions.He implicitly said he wouldn't do that and that's why he doesn't make sense.

Then I think you don't understand what he said. He said that he would
1. lower RATES
2. do away with deductions over a certain income
3. give the middle class tax relief while not lowering the overall amount of taxes for the wealthy
4. implement a plan whereby a combination of reducing deductions for higher incomes PLUS getting more people back to work who will be paying taxes will increase the tax revenues the government collects.

Now, I don't know how solid Romney's plan is or how well it will work but Obama's plans have NOT worked and I am willing to give Romney a try. I just keep reading people claim that Romney said things last night that he didn't say. So let's set the record straight about what Romney actually said, regarding taxes.

Two questions,Neko.When you do away w/ a tax deduction what happens?A. You pay more taxes.Do you get this? Second, where are the jobs from the Bush tax cuts that he says his tax cuts will create more jobs? Do you see this is the same old rhetoric as before?

Comprehension still isn't one of your strong points.

The Clinton Dot.Com recession began in March of 2000. If you recall, we also had a massive terrorist attack on 9/11/2001 which further crippled the economy and plunged us deeper into recession. UNEMPLOYMENT REACHED 6% before the Bush tax cuts went into effect and brought DOWN unemployment to 4.6% in 2006 and 2007 before the Democrat driven Housing/Mortgage/Financial meltdown led to this current crisis.

The DEBT over the eight years of the Bush Administration increased by $4.4 TRILLION. That’s FAR less than the damage done by the Democrats since Nancy Pelosi took over the House in 2007.

What happened when the "tax cuts you revile so much were implemented?

Revenues to IRS AVERAGED $1.875 TRILLION during Bush's first 3 years in office, before the BUSH TAX CUTS took effect. Gee...that's nearly President Barack Hussein Obama $1.3 TRILLION DEFICIT each year since Obama took office.

AFTER the BUSH TAX CUTS TOOK EFFECT, REVENUES AVERAGED $2.306 TRILLION his last FIVE years. That's $431 BILLION more per year or $2.155 TRILLION increase over five years.

WOW…how did that happen? They resulted in a $2.155 TRILLION INCREASE IN REVENUES?

Margin Call

Margin Call

Markle wrote:

AFTER the BUSH TAX CUTS TOOK EFFECT, REVENUES AVERAGED $2.306 TRILLION his last FIVE years. That's $431 BILLION more per year or $2.155 TRILLION increase over five years.

WOW…how did that happen? They resulted in a $2.155 TRILLION INCREASE IN REVENUES?

"The Democrat driven Housing/Mortgage/Financial" boom.

We currently have record tax receipts in 2012. How did that happen?

Guest


Guest

Markle wrote:
reaper1948 wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
reaper1948 wrote:Which one of the jokers has proposed doing away with the mortgage tax credit?


Romney.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/mitt-romney-suggests-cutting-mortgage-interest-deduction-on-eve-of-presidential-debate-1.4066809

Yep, but he will help the middle class who hold most of the mortgages.

You know 3 or 4 months ago, well before he picked Ryan I was leaning towards him but I just can't see it and there is absolutely no one that can convince me he will help the middle class.

The solution for the underwater mortgages, foreclosures and short sales has been drawn out and delayed by President Barack Hussein Obama for now over 4 years. The solution was simple, implementation...not so easy. We could have been on our way to recovery long ago.

So what the hell does this have to do with my mortgage interest deduction I take every year on my taxes? Did not real estate people who helped over price the market years ago have something to do with all those underwater mortgages.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.


Here's several "clarifications" re statements Romney actually said during the debate and why they aren't true. If you go to the link for this article you can see links within most of these "corrections" that give the information on which they base their positions.


2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?page=0%2C0&akid=9489.310455.yEBwUY&rd=1&src=newsletter721973&t=3

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Dreams, 1.First of all, Romney proposes to lower all tax rates, across the board. All rates would be lower, including for middle class and wealthy. 2. For those making above a certain income, some deductions would be eliminated or maybe gradually reduced/done away with so that high income people would not be able to take all those deductions BUT instead, they would pay at a lower rate. But for the middle and lower income, the deductions would not be eliminated. So the middle class gets A. a tax rate cut and B. they keep their deductions.
I don't know the details of this plan and 2 minutes is not enough time for Romney to explain details, but this is the outline of what Romney proposed.

About jobs, Romney proposes that by lowering the tax rate (while keeping deductions for the middle class), families will have more money to spend. Plus he proposes that reforming Obamacare and lowering the tax rate for small business owners will stimulate job creation. And in turn, with more people working, the government will in fact collect more in taxes.

Now, maybe Romney is wrong. Maybe he's totally wrong. Maybe he has no idea what he's talking about. But Obama hasn't much room to talk because he has not delivered on his promises from 2008. But at least people should get their facts right when they are quoting what Romney said (or what Obama said, for that matter). Because Romney didn't say a lot of the stuff that he's been accused of saying.

Here's another thing.You take someone who makes a million dollars and gets a 20% tax deduction.That's $200,000.Do you think those people get
$200,000 in tax credits from the IRS that Romney is going to cut out?Of course not but take 20 % out of a middle income person and that hurts.The rich win again.

I think Romney means a 20% rate reduction, not 20% of a person's income.

Romney is not proposing to take 20% out of a middle income person's income.

Nekochan

Nekochan

othershoe1030 wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.


Here's several "clarifications" re statements Romney actually said during the debate and why they aren't true. If you go to the link for this article you can see links within most of these "corrections" that give the information on which they base their positions.


2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?page=0%2C0&akid=9489.310455.yEBwUY&rd=1&src=newsletter721973&t=3

Romney is saying that by getting more people to work, tax revenues will go way up. He did not suggest that only doing away with deductions and exemptions will make up for a rate decrease.

Margin Call

Margin Call

Nekochan wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.


Here's several "clarifications" re statements Romney actually said during the debate and why they aren't true. If you go to the link for this article you can see links within most of these "corrections" that give the information on which they base their positions.


2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?page=0%2C0&akid=9489.310455.yEBwUY&rd=1&src=newsletter721973&t=3

Romney is saying that by getting more people to work, tax revenues will go way up. He did not suggest that only doing away with deductions and exemptions will make up for a rate decrease.

...and boards asked how his tax plan is stimulative for job growth as Romney says it is.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Margin Call wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.


Here's several "clarifications" re statements Romney actually said during the debate and why they aren't true. If you go to the link for this article you can see links within most of these "corrections" that give the information on which they base their positions.


2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?page=0%2C0&akid=9489.310455.yEBwUY&rd=1&src=newsletter721973&t=3

Romney is saying that by getting more people to work, tax revenues will go way up. He did not suggest that only doing away with deductions and exemptions will make up for a rate decrease.

...and boards asked how his tax plan is stimulative for job growth as Romney says it is.

Actually, Boards stated in his thread title that it isn't really a tax cut. Which is not what Romney said. If y'all are going to ask questions about Romney's plan, at least don't mis-state what Romney said.

Margin Call

Margin Call

Nekochan wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.


Here's several "clarifications" re statements Romney actually said during the debate and why they aren't true. If you go to the link for this article you can see links within most of these "corrections" that give the information on which they base their positions.


2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?page=0%2C0&akid=9489.310455.yEBwUY&rd=1&src=newsletter721973&t=3

Romney is saying that by getting more people to work, tax revenues will go way up. He did not suggest that only doing away with deductions and exemptions will make up for a rate decrease.

...and boards asked how his tax plan is stimulative for job growth as Romney says it is.

Actually, Boards stated in his thread title that it isn't really a tax cut. Which is not what Romney said. If y'all are going to ask questions about Romney's plan, at least don't mis-state what Romney said.

Boards was saying that Romney claims his "tax cuts" (aka, cutting the tax rates) are stimulative. Romney originally said he would cut taxes for everyone but retracted that notion in the debate by saying he wouldn't actually cut the amount of taxes paid. So, how is that stimulative?

Nekochan

Nekochan

Margin Call wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.


Here's several "clarifications" re statements Romney actually said during the debate and why they aren't true. If you go to the link for this article you can see links within most of these "corrections" that give the information on which they base their positions.


2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?page=0%2C0&akid=9489.310455.yEBwUY&rd=1&src=newsletter721973&t=3

Romney is saying that by getting more people to work, tax revenues will go way up. He did not suggest that only doing away with deductions and exemptions will make up for a rate decrease.

...and boards asked how his tax plan is stimulative for job growth as Romney says it is.

Actually, Boards stated in his thread title that it isn't really a tax cut. Which is not what Romney said. If y'all are going to ask questions about Romney's plan, at least don't mis-state what Romney said.

Boards was saying that Romney claims his "tax cuts" (aka, cutting the tax rates) are stimulative. Romney originally said he would cut taxes for everyone but retracted that notion in the debate by saying he wouldn't actually cut the amount of taxes paid. So, how is that stimulative?

No, that is not what Romney said in the debate. He said that the middle class would get a tax cut. He said that some deductions would be eliminated after a certain income.
The thread title is not what Romney said no matter how many times you keep repeating it or how many different ways you repeat it.

Guest


Guest

Margin Call wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.


Here's several "clarifications" re statements Romney actually said during the debate and why they aren't true. If you go to the link for this article you can see links within most of these "corrections" that give the information on which they base their positions.


2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?page=0%2C0&akid=9489.310455.yEBwUY&rd=1&src=newsletter721973&t=3

Romney is saying that by getting more people to work, tax revenues will go way up. He did not suggest that only doing away with deductions and exemptions will make up for a rate decrease.

...and boards asked how his tax plan is stimulative for job growth as Romney says it is.

Actually, Boards stated in his thread title that it isn't really a tax cut. Which is not what Romney said. If y'all are going to ask questions about Romney's plan, at least don't mis-state what Romney said.

Boards was saying that Romney claims his "tax cuts" (aka, cutting the tax rates) are stimulative. Romney originally said he would cut taxes for everyone but retracted that notion in the debate by saying he wouldn't actually cut the amount of taxes paid. So, how is that stimulative?

seems to me what romney plans on doing is closing the door to all those loopholes, while lowering thier taxes. sure it may even out, no one knows really, so say it does as speculated here. it really is the closest thing to a flat tax weve ever had. it should make it easier for large bussiness to keep all thier money here instead of trying to find legal loopholes. This is just a thought since we really dont have full details.

again, whats obamas plan? to dingle around with bushes? Laughing

Margin Call

Margin Call

Nekochan wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.


Here's several "clarifications" re statements Romney actually said during the debate and why they aren't true. If you go to the link for this article you can see links within most of these "corrections" that give the information on which they base their positions.


2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?page=0%2C0&akid=9489.310455.yEBwUY&rd=1&src=newsletter721973&t=3

Romney is saying that by getting more people to work, tax revenues will go way up. He did not suggest that only doing away with deductions and exemptions will make up for a rate decrease.

...and boards asked how his tax plan is stimulative for job growth as Romney says it is.

Actually, Boards stated in his thread title that it isn't really a tax cut. Which is not what Romney said. If y'all are going to ask questions about Romney's plan, at least don't mis-state what Romney said.

Boards was saying that Romney claims his "tax cuts" (aka, cutting the tax rates) are stimulative. Romney originally said he would cut taxes for everyone but retracted that notion in the debate by saying he wouldn't actually cut the amount of taxes paid. So, how is that stimulative?

No, that is not what Romney said in the debate. He said that the middle class would get a tax cut. He said that some deductions would be eliminated after a certain income.
The thread title is not what Romney said no matter how many times you keep repeating it or how many different ways you repeat it.

He also said he wouldn't add to the deficit which is why he can't offer the middle class tax breaks as well unless he can guarantee enormous job and income growth.

Relevant point I think boards was asking: How is his plan stimulative if the "job creators" aren't really getting tax breaks which supposedly create jobs when Romney touts that his tax rate cuts for high income earners will stimulate job growth?

He offered a plan so that high income business owners would create jobs from tax cuts savings...but, the tax cuts aren't really there!

Nekochan

Nekochan

Margin Call wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.


Here's several "clarifications" re statements Romney actually said during the debate and why they aren't true. If you go to the link for this article you can see links within most of these "corrections" that give the information on which they base their positions.


2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?page=0%2C0&akid=9489.310455.yEBwUY&rd=1&src=newsletter721973&t=3

Romney is saying that by getting more people to work, tax revenues will go way up. He did not suggest that only doing away with deductions and exemptions will make up for a rate decrease.

...and boards asked how his tax plan is stimulative for job growth as Romney says it is.

Actually, Boards stated in his thread title that it isn't really a tax cut. Which is not what Romney said. If y'all are going to ask questions about Romney's plan, at least don't mis-state what Romney said.

Boards was saying that Romney claims his "tax cuts" (aka, cutting the tax rates) are stimulative. Romney originally said he would cut taxes for everyone but retracted that notion in the debate by saying he wouldn't actually cut the amount of taxes paid. So, how is that stimulative?

No, that is not what Romney said in the debate. He said that the middle class would get a tax cut. He said that some deductions would be eliminated after a certain income.
The thread title is not what Romney said no matter how many times you keep repeating it or how many different ways you repeat it.

He also said he wouldn't add to the deficit which is why he can't offer the middle class tax breaks as well unless he can guarantee enormous job and income growth.

Relevant point I think boards was asking: How is his plan stimulative if the "job creators" aren't really getting tax breaks which supposedly create jobs when Romney touts that his tax rate cuts for high income earners will stimulate job growth?
Romney talked about a tax cut for small businesses, who he claims create most jobs. Go read the debate transcript and see what he actually said about small business tax cuts. Then I think your comments/criticisms would be relevant.
As I said before, I don't know how well Romney's plan will work but I do know that Obama's plans are not working.

Markle

Markle

Margin Call wrote:
Markle wrote:

AFTER the BUSH TAX CUTS TOOK EFFECT, REVENUES AVERAGED $2.306 TRILLION his last FIVE years. That's $431 BILLION more per year or $2.155 TRILLION increase over five years.

WOW…how did that happen? They resulted in a $2.155 TRILLION INCREASE IN REVENUES?

"The Democrat driven Housing/Mortgage/Financial" boom.

We currently have record tax receipts in 2012. How did that happen?

Interesting. 2012 tax receipts won't be in until the middle or latter part of 2013.

Margin Call

Margin Call

Markle wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Markle wrote:

AFTER the BUSH TAX CUTS TOOK EFFECT, REVENUES AVERAGED $2.306 TRILLION his last FIVE years. That's $431 BILLION more per year or $2.155 TRILLION increase over five years.

WOW…how did that happen? They resulted in a $2.155 TRILLION INCREASE IN REVENUES?

"The Democrat driven Housing/Mortgage/Financial" boom.

We currently have record tax receipts in 2012. How did that happen?

Interesting. 2012 tax receipts won't be in until the middle or latter part of 2013.

Stop. Google. Think.....then post something.

So what is the actual stimulative effect of a "tax cut" if it isn't really a tax cut? - Page 2 Fredgraph

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum