10/12/2012 12:41 PM
If Romney's tax cut is revenue neutral, what's the point? All he's doing is shifting around who pays the taxes.

I'm all for tax cuts. They are incredibly stimulative and would help the economy right now. But if you're not reducing the amount of money collected by the government, it isn't really a tax cut.

You're either super concerned about the deficit and want to reduce it (in my opinion, the wrong place to focus while the economy is still slow) or you want to cut taxes. But you can't do both.
10/12/2012 12:58 PM

Obama wants to raise taxes and increase spending.  That doesn't address the deficit.  Raising taxes doesn't help the economy either.

Romney wants to keep tax revenue neutral while cutting federal spending.  That does address the deficit while simplifying the tax code at the same time.

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/12/2012 1:28 PM

Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?

Tax Year 2009 

Percentiles Ranked by AGI

AGI Threshold on Percentiles

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%

$343,927

36.73

Top 5%

$154,643

58.66

Top 10%

$112,124

70.47

Top 25%

$66,193

87.30

Top 50%

$32,396

97.75

Bottom 50%

<$32,396

2.25

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

10/12/2012 1:31 PM
While "tx the rich!" is a popular refrain from the Democrats, the numbers already show that the rich are already being taxed pretty heavily.

I'm not sure why it's necessary to keep going back there as a talking point, other than it appeals to the Democratic base.
10/12/2012 1:36 PM
I'm not advocating taxing the rich. The problem with Romney's tax plan is that it lowers taxes on the rich while still being revenue neutral. That difference is going to have to be made up somewhere.
10/12/2012 1:42 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/12/2012 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?

Tax Year 2009 

Percentiles Ranked by AGI

AGI Threshold on Percentiles

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%

$343,927

36.73

Top 5%

$154,643

58.66

Top 10%

$112,124

70.47

Top 25%

$66,193

87.30

Top 50%

$32,396

97.75

Bottom 50%

<$32,396

2.25

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

Compare this to who holds the wealth in the country:

The top 1% has 35% of the wealth.
The bottom 50% has 1% of the wealth.

Who should pay more and who should pay less?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33433.pdf


10/12/2012 1:58 PM
Who should pay more?   Do the wealthy get some "special bonus" use of the services that the US Govt provides?    Are their roads pothole free and paved with gold?   Do they have constant police presence?
10/12/2012 2:01 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/12/2012 1:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/12/2012 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?

Tax Year 2009 

Percentiles Ranked by AGI

AGI Threshold on Percentiles

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%

$343,927

36.73

Top 5%

$154,643

58.66

Top 10%

$112,124

70.47

Top 25%

$66,193

87.30

Top 50%

$32,396

97.75

Bottom 50%

<$32,396

2.25

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

Compare this to who holds the wealth in the country:

The top 1% has 35% of the wealth.
The bottom 50% has 1% of the wealth.

Who should pay more and who should pay less?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33433.pdf


So that pretty much lines up with tax revenues.

So why does Obama keep insisting that everybody needs to "pay their fair share" when the numbers show that they already are?
10/12/2012 2:06 PM
If a presidential candidate proposes a plan to cut taxes yet remain revenue neutral, someone will have to pay more. Should it be the poor who control 1% of the country's wealth and pay over 2% of the income taxes?
10/12/2012 2:25 PM
My understanding of Romney's revenue neutral tax cut is that it's not shifting who pays what.  It's lowering the effective tax rate while elminating deductions, i.e. simplifying the tax code.  So the wealthy would be paying roughly the same, they'd just be paying a lower rate on a larger taxable income.
10/12/2012 2:27 PM
Here's the message.

Go to school, get an education, find a job, work hard, do good and we'll let you pay more taxes.

Yay!  Sign me up!!!
10/12/2012 3:51 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/12/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
My understanding of Romney's revenue neutral tax cut is that it's not shifting who pays what.  It's lowering the effective tax rate while elminating deductions, i.e. simplifying the tax code.  So the wealthy would be paying roughly the same, they'd just be paying a lower rate on a larger taxable income.
I don't know if that's true. This non-partisan study ( www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/10/08-romney-tax-debate-gale) points out that based on the details Romney has given - reducing overall rates by 20 percent; repealing estate taxes, the AMT, and capital income taxes -  taxes are reduced for people making over $200,000. The plan doesn't just simplify the way they pay the same amount.

If you reduce the taxes for people making over $200,000 a year and keep your plan revenue neutral, there's no way not to increase taxes on people making less than $200,000.


10/12/2012 6:22 PM
if you broaden the tax base then the revenue will increase without nailing the middle class.
10/12/2012 6:28 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/12/2012 3:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/12/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
My understanding of Romney's revenue neutral tax cut is that it's not shifting who pays what.  It's lowering the effective tax rate while elminating deductions, i.e. simplifying the tax code.  So the wealthy would be paying roughly the same, they'd just be paying a lower rate on a larger taxable income.
I don't know if that's true. This non-partisan study ( www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/10/08-romney-tax-debate-gale) points out that based on the details Romney has given - reducing overall rates by 20 percent; repealing estate taxes, the AMT, and capital income taxes -  taxes are reduced for people making over $200,000. The plan doesn't just simplify the way they pay the same amount.

If you reduce the taxes for people making over $200,000 a year and keep your plan revenue neutral, there's no way not to increase taxes on people making less than $200,000.


So why were the Bush tax cuts revenue neutral?

And with spending cuts we see a lower debt.
of 8

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.