Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know what else is interesting? The part where you neglect to quote or mention the rest of the paragraph: "That part of the analysis looked only at the impact of those two proposals, not Romney's tax plan overall."
Which I'm sure you'll agree changes things entirely. So apparently your position on the issues is so weak that you have to use half-truths to make your point.
Taxers for the middle class have fallen under Obama. It was part of the stimulus plan and also part of that payroll extension that was a ruckus not long ago. The President doesn't make the price of oil nor does he set food prices.
I realize that you want to blindly whine about Obama to fulfill whatever odd emotional need you have to do so, but can you at least get your facts straight beforehand and provide some arguments that you can back up?
Sure, no problem. The payroll tax cut for one year is being funded on the backs of the next 10 years worth of FHA and other home buyers with federally backed mortgages, who will be paying many times more in fees over the course of their loans than they got in the tax break. So that really wasn't so much a lowered tax for the middle class as it was a wealth transfer from the poorest home buyers to everyone else.
You know what else is interesting? The part where you neglect to quote or mention the rest of the paragraph: "That part of the analysis looked only at the impact of those two proposals, not Romney's tax plan overall."
Which I'm sure you'll agree changes things entirely. So apparently your position on the issues is so weak that you have to use half-truths to make your point.
Quote:
Keep in mind that TPC did not try to estimate revenues for Romney 2.0. There are other tax cuts in that plan, but we took two of the biggest and projected what would happen. As a result, TPC has come up with a conservative estimate of how big a hole Romney would have to fill if he intends to pay for these tax cuts.
To start, TPC took a world where the 2001/2003/2010 rate cuts are already made permanent and the AMT is temporarily patched. Then, modeler Dan Baneman figured what would happen if the AMT is abolished entirely. Next, he looked at what happens if today’s rates of 10-15-25-28-33-35 are each cut by 20 percent so they become 8-12-20 etc. up to a top rate of 28 percent.
TPC did figure people would change their behavior in the wake of rate cuts this big, and incorporated those responses in the estimate. But TPC did not take into account any economic growth the rate reductions might generate.
I suspect they would boost growth, but nobody has a credible way to measure by how much. And despite the fervent wishes of tax cutters everywhere, there is simply no evidence that tax cuts ever generate enough growth to pay for themselves.
The bottom line: Leaving aside any broad economic benefits, the AMT repeal would increase the shortfall by $670 billion while the rate cuts would add about $2.7 trillion to the deficit. That’s more than $3 trillion over 10 years. In 2022 alone—the last year TPC estimated—the twin changes would add $450 billion to the deficit.
the Urban and Brookings Institute are both Left wing orgs.
Quote:
Mitt Romney's new tax plan strongly favors the wealthiest Americans, offering earners in the top 20 percent an average tax cut of more than $16,000 while raising taxes on the bottom 20 percent of earners, according to an analysis from a non-partisan Washington think tank.
Sure, no problem. The payroll tax cut for one year is being funded on the backs of the next 10 years worth of FHA and other home buyers with federally backed mortgages, who will be paying many times more in fees over the course of their loans than they got in the tax break. So that really wasn't so much a lowered tax for the middle class as it was a wealth transfer from the poorest home buyers to everyone else.
What makes you think FHA insured buyers are poor? FHA insures loans up to $729,000.00
Romney has taken to campaigning under one of those digital debt clocks that shows the flow of red ink increasing by the second. But if he can’t find about $3 trillion to offset this exceedingly generous tax cut, that clock will be running a lot faster on his watch than it does today.
What makes you think FHA insured buyers are poor? FHA insures loans up to $729,000.00
FHA insured buyers are the buyers with minimal down payments; if they had 20% down, they would be getting conventional loans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lol...
