10/12/2012 6:32 PM
Posted by gregsimon on 10/12/2012 6:22:00 PM (view original):
if you broaden the tax base then the revenue will increase without nailing the middle class.
Doesn't "broaden the base" just mean collect more taxes from poor people?
10/12/2012 6:34 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/12/2012 6:28:00 PM (view original):
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.
I don't think they were. If you can show some non-partisan studies showing that they were, I'll believe you.  
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/13/2012 12:23 AM
Also if you get people back to work THAT broadens the tax-base.
More people working and earning enough money to pay taxes = broadening the base.
10/13/2012 1:08 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/12/2012 6:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/12/2012 6:28:00 PM (view original):
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.
I don't think they were. If you can show some non-partisan studies showing that they were, I'll believe you.  
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/
10/15/2012 11:25 AM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/13/2012 1:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/12/2012 6:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/12/2012 6:28:00 PM (view original):
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.
I don't think they were. If you can show some non-partisan studies showing that they were, I'll believe you.  
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/
Ummm...that's not a study, it's an opinion piece by a columnist at a very right wing newspaper. 
10/15/2012 4:44 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/15/2012 5:02 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/15/2012 4:44:00 PM (view original):
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm
The guy credits the tax cuts for revenue growth but then blames the recession for drops in revenue. Just because revenue went up, doesn't mean the tax cuts were revenue neutral. 

www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
10/15/2012 5:46 PM
The revenue did go up, but places like the CBO examine data in a static fashion.

It isnt bias, just how they do it.

They assume that no matter what you made, if your tax rate was higher it would have made more.

And your post looked like one of the neutral fact check sites, it is in fact the Annenberg factcheck site, a Progressive group.



10/15/2012 5:54 PM
They are non-partisan and part of the University of Pennsylvania. It's an ivy league school and much more reliable than:

"ABOUT THE AUTHOR:  Michael T. Griffith holds a Master’s degree in Theology from The Catholic Distance University"
10/15/2012 6:24 PM
So either we throw out all questionable sites or we keep all of them in.

I am tried of left wing lunatics being ok, but anyone right of center is out of the question.
10/15/2012 7:00 PM
There's nothing lunatic about the University of Penn's non-partisan fact checker.

You are insane. 
10/15/2012 10:57 PM
Bottom line is it's not a zero sum game.  Tax cuts have proven that.  Intuition tells us that.  The Laffer Curve (simplified) also tells us that.  In the most extreme form, if tax rates were 100%, there would be zero revenue to the government because no one would produce.  If tax rates were 0%, there would be zero revenue because no one would pay (obviously).  It follows then that somewhere along the tax rate line is an area of peak revenue (I believe it shifts somewhat). 

With tax cuts in place and with businesses being able to better compete in the world marketplace, growth will follow (as it has every time it's been tried since the early 20th century).  The overall GDP growth is the "increase in the tax base".

BTW, when taxes have been cut, the wealthy have paid an even larger share of the revenues.

Those that want to raise tax rates on the wealthy aren't really interested in increasing government revenues, nor are they interested in the "rich paying their fair share".  If they were interested in those things, given the current behavior of revenue versus tax rates, they would not be clamoring for tax increases for the rich.

The best way to increase taxes on the rich and increase government revenue is to allow more wealth to be created.  Stifle opportunity in the name of "fairness" and no one wins - except those who are already rich and those who have the power.
10/15/2012 11:04 PM
You can't turn that into a catchy phrase that creates class warfare.    You lose.
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.