The Real Mitt Romney

[Flint]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Neutral? Then what's the point?

Good question. The point, as I understand it (and insomuch as this is a valid theory) is that since tax rates have gone down, business has been stimulated. Tax revenues have gone up, beause of the increase in commerce. But individuals are paying the same amount, since rate and deduction changes have offset each other.

Keep in mind, all I am responding to is the comment that Romney's tax plan is incomprehensible. I don't think it is.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Flint

snip--

Keep in mind, all I am responding to is the comment that Romney's tax plan is incomprehensible. I don't think it is.

I know you're talking, we are all talking about Romney's plan, not Flint's political philosophies.

Romney's tax plan is NOT incomprehensible. Romney's tax plan is arithmetically impossible.

He's said things that taken together are contradictory--they can not all exist at the same time.

A guy walks up to a pretty girl at the club. "You're gorgeous! Let's go back to my place and I'll f*ck your brains out. I promise I'll respect you in the morning. Don't worry, your virginity will remain intact."

Not all can happen.

Romney's promised to reduce tax rates (by 20%).

Romney's promise to eliminate deductions by an equal amount (undefined--vagueness prevents precise calculations, so estimates are used).

Romney's promised to keep proportion of taxes paid by taxpayers in top 5% the same (60%).

Romney's promised to reduce the amount of taxes paid by the middle class ($200,000/year income).

Romney's promised to reduce the deficit (no amount given that I could find).

How can all of these be managed? No one has produced an explanation that provides room for all these promises.

What I take from this is that Romney tells the audience he's in front of the thing they want to hear. Fine, they all do that. But as the audiences change, the main story changes. Also fine, different people can have different high priorities. However, Romney's just the one guy, and if he's elected, he can only do one thing, produce one net result, and when the statements are incompatible, something's going to get broken. What promise will be broken?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Flint

A. The rate is a rate of income being taxed, so when you reduce rates there is more money left to individuals as income, and less money received by the government as taxes.

B. Deductions are (in effect) a method of giving money back, so when you reduce deductions, there is less money received by individuals as returns, and more money recieved by the government as taxes.

Whereas A. and B. have opposite effects, the net effect is neutral (theoretcially--I'm not arguing feasability, just describing a simple flowchart), meaning no change. Neutral doesn't mean more.



I'm still struggling to identify the area which is difficult to understand.

deductions reduce the amount of income that is subject to taxation. a deduction is an amount of money you've spent during the year on a given thing(s). If those things fall into certain categories, the amount spent can be deducted from your gross income, repeat as necessary, until you get to your adjusted gross income, the amount that is subject to taxation. deductions are like exemptions, a certain kind and amount of income is exempted from taxation.

more deductions, more exemptions, more money excluded from taxation, and for a given rate of taxation, less tax collected.

by eliminating deductions, fewer deductions, fewer exemptions, less money excluded from taxation, for a given rate of taxation, more tax collected.

***

Originally Posted by Flint

The way I understood him to be explaining it in the debate:

1. Reduce ‘individual’ tax rate
...a. Individuals in households pay less
...b. Individuals who own small businesses pay less
2. Tax revenues decreased at this point
3. Small businesses stimulated at this point
...a. Resulting in tax revenues going back up
4. Also, deductions eliminated for households
...a. Households end up paying the same amount

So. "Neutral doesn't mean more", neutral is neutral, ok, ok. Then where does *this* more money (in the pockets of people) come from?

Romney's said he'd reduce the tax rate. He's said he'd eliminate deductions to make the change revenue neutral. How is this going to make it possible for people to pay less in taxes?

What is it? Is it paying less in taxes or is it revenue neutral?

[Lamplighter]

Romney's said he'd reduce the tax rate.
He's said he'd eliminate deductions to make the change revenue neutral.
How is this going to make it possible for people to pay less in taxes?

Revenue neutral may mean (for Romney) the total $ of revenue stays the same.

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.

[Stormieweather]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Cap and trade was a Republican invention.

Want to try again?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Cap and trade was a Republican invention.

Want to try again?

Oh, I'm sure a national tax on a product of any kind, is a Republican invention, because we WANT the government to get more of our money.

You sure know your Conservative ideas, don't you?

Are you drinking, smoking some wacky tobacky, or what?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

Oh, I'm sure a national tax on a product of any kind, is a Republican invention, because we WANT the government to get more of our money.

Yes. C. Boyden Gray, a Reagan and GHW Bush lawyer, first signed into law by GHW Bush.

[DanaC]

Adak, you can call it what you will. That doesn't change what it is, or isn't.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Adak, you can call it what you will. That doesn't change what it is, or isn't.

I will certainly agree.

And what we have here, is 3 1/2 years of failed fiscal policies.

If Obama could have gotten his fiscal policies smartened up, he'd be a shoe-in for re-election. But now? It will be a very close race.

The races in the House of Rep. and the Senate, will also be very important. If I have to listen to Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, I'll be investing in earplugs and noise cancelling headphones.

I believe they could use Pelosi for gentle coercion, down at Gitmo. A few hours listening to her gobbletygook, and they'll be jumping at the chance of confessing their crimes, just to make that irritating sound of her voice, stop.

[Ibby]

oh my god i sound like tw on drugs what is going on?
also i'm loving this Deadpool-style two-voice commentary agh somebody make me go to bed i have class tomorrow

[Ibby]

No, really, dude. Cap and trade was the CONSERVATIVE response to a FLAT CAP on emissions! Cap and trade was not the deal between two parties, or a liberal idea - it was a REPUBLICAN plan built of a compromise between free-market Ayn Rand lunatics who wanted to seem to want a market alternative, hence the TRADE part of Cap and Trade, and the INSANE FRINGE - that now DOMINATES the republican party - that denies the proof of wide-scale climate change and didn't see why caps should be there in the first place and wanted to subvert them as much as possible.

Learn your modern fucking political history, you idiotic shill.

Originally Posted by Adak

Are you drinking, smoking some wacky tobacky, or what?

I'm doing both, and I'm STILL right. And I dunno how old you are, but I'd guess by your get-off-my-lawn embarrassing-older-relative political positions that compared to you, i'm just a kid. and I'm STILL RIGHT.

why don't you take a flying fuck at a rolling donut?

[Ibby]

because the current house isn't a textbook case of failed leadership or anything.
Clinton/Pelosi 2016 #misandry 4 lyf #fuckthepatriarchy #fuckthekyriarchy

[Ibby]

Both the in the House in DC and in republican state houses across the country the focus has been jobs jobs jobs by which they mean ABORTION. There have been more anti-abortion bills introduced this session than in ANY other session in the HISTORY of our nation. If that isn't an utter failure of national leadership and policy I don't know what is. On the other hand, landmark reforms of health care, fair pay, non-discrimination, and, from the end of the recession, the sharpest rise in private sector job growth since the WPA and the War on Poverty without growing government jobs sounds like Obama knows what's right for this country.

[Trilby]

What promise will be broken?

the promise that we're all going to live on planet Mormon (kudos to Els for that one)

Romney's going to do it all - make everything work and not cost us a dime, balance the budget, get people back to work, reduce taxes and...and...in what country is 200,000 the "middle class"- ? coz either I'm in the wrong damn country or I'm being butteffed. With no lube.