In response to:
Romney would preserve provisions of the tax code most responsible for millionaires like himself paying tax rates considerably lower than those with a fraction of his income.
The Tax Policy Center said that Romney’s numbers don’t add up. Either he will greatly increase the deficit or he will have to raise taxes on the middle class to maintain revenue neutrality. Even if every deduction, exclusion and credit for the wealthy was abolished, their taxes would still go down under Romney’s plan.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001628
One of the strongest elements of Mitt Romney's spectacular debate performance was his decisive rejoinder to the president's oft-repeated allegation that the Republican plans to raise taxes on middle class families. Obama said Romney has designs on an unpaid-for $5 trillion tax cut that would eventually necessitate higher tax bills for average Americans. Romney flatly rejected the claim by calling it false, then explained what he actually has in mind. But the president returned to the "$5 trillion" well on several subsequent occasions, prompting more rebuttals from his challenger. FactCheck.org and CNN reviewed Obama's accusation, and found it wanting....
There are a few things that Romney stressed which this lovely little piece of toilet paper disregard.
In the report you referenced there is no increase in economic growth allowed, no base boradening, which is one of the things Romney stressed.
The reason the report did not make allowances for the increase in tax base is because "As Brill and Viard summarize, “lowering statutory tax rates while broadening the income tax base generally does not reduce work disincentives because it leaves the relevant effective tax rates unchanged."
Now if, as Romney proposed, the tax rates came down then this would ignite even more growth.
This is what Romney proposes.
Long long ago I had a hot dog cart on Phila. I lowered the cost of a special but sold more so even though I charged less I made more.
It is called econ 101
I should have mentioned that I was quoting Ronald Reagan senior economic adviser Bruce Bartlett -- who knows a thing or two about the Laffer curve.
Paragraphs 15 and 16
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/exploring-mitt-romneys-taxes-and-tax-plan/
Especially if the revenue to the Gov goes up?
His tax scheme may be revenue neutral in the aggregate but it's not "taxes paid" neutral to the individual tax payer: he's just shuffling stuff around but I end up writing a check for the same amount, because despite a lower tax rate, I also get to deduct less.
Please PLEASE tell me that you finally understand this.
You have to analyze where you are on the bell shaped curve. There is a big difference in Ronald Reagan cutting 70% tax rates and doing what Romney is proposing.