In response to:

Cutter: Okay Fine, We've Been Lying About Romney's Tax Plan

Redumbapubs Wrote: Oct 06, 2012 11:49 PM
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.
AmyDB Wrote: Oct 07, 2012 12:01 AM
I shredded this load of straw yesterday Red.

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.
ReddestNeck Wrote: Oct 07, 2012 12:08 AM
not even so much ignite, as to simply stop stifling.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Oct 06, 2012 11:55 PM
Whats wrong with taxes going down? Grow the economy and revenue remains neutral.

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
Redumbapubs Wrote: Oct 07, 2012 12:00 AM
Oh excuse me Tinsldr2:

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

ReddestNeck Wrote: Oct 07, 2012 12:01 AM
aurabot, that rich plutocrat, is laffing at the laffer curve, obviously
Joseph1575 Wrote: Oct 07, 2012 12:02 AM
That's waaay too complicated for a Leftist foot soldier. And too uncomplicated for a Leftist radical.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Oct 07, 2012 12:04 AM
Again what is wrong with a rich persons (or any INDIVIDUAL persons) taxes going down?

Especially if the revenue to the Gov goes up?
ReddestNeck Wrote: Oct 07, 2012 12:07 AM
because it ain't faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaair!
Redumbapubs Wrote: Oct 07, 2012 12:09 AM
You read Bruce Bartlett's article in a whole 4 minutes and really soaked it in didn't you?

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.
ReddestNeck Wrote: Oct 07, 2012 12:14 AM
i thought liberals like you were whining about all those special tax carve outs. so when romney hints he might simplify this, you whine about it too?

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. and CNN reviewed Obama's accusation, and found it wanting....