![]() |
|
Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
Quote:
So if an upper part of the middle class pays less: ---(e.g., no taxes on stock dividends, interest income, capital gains, no taxes on estates handed down to family members, etc.) and bottom half pays more: ---(e.g., loss of deductions for home mortage, charity, education, etc.) to Romney, if the $ amount remains the same, this is "revenue neutral"... But for those in the bottom half, somehow it doesn't quite feel that way. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Wearing her bitch boots
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Floriduh
Posts: 1,181
|
Well, "revenue neutral" means changing the tax structure so that the revenue stream for the government remains unchanged. If Romney will not raise taxes on the wealthy, the only other option is to raise them on the non-wealthy.
Sounded to me, last night, like he is trying to claim that he isn't "raising taxes" on the non-wealthy, instead, he's eliminating loopholes. Same effect on your take-home pay, if you are non-wealthy.
__________________
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|