A. The rate is a rate of income being taxed, so when you reduce rates there is more money left to individuals as income, and less money received by the government as taxes.

B. Deductions are (in effect) a method of giving money back, so when you reduce deductions, there is less money received by individuals as returns, and more money recieved by the government as taxes.

Whereas A. and B. have opposite effects, the net effect is neutral (theoretcially--I'm not arguing feasability, just describing a simple flowchart), meaning no change. Neutral doesn't mean more.



I'm still struggling to identify the area which is difficult to understand.

Neutral? Then what's the point?
When you make $50,000, your mortgage deduction is a very big deal.
When you make $50 million, not so much.

Good question. The point, as I understand it (and insomuch as this is a valid theory) is that since tax rates have gone down, business has been stimulated. Tax revenues have gone up, beause of the increase in commerce. But individuals are paying the same amount, since rate and deduction changes have offset each other.

Keep in mind, all I am responding to is the comment that Romney's tax plan is incomprehensible. I don't think it is.

deductions reduce the amount of income that is subject to taxation. a deduction is an amount of money you've spent during the year on a given thing(s). If those things fall into certain categories, the amount spent can be deducted from your gross income, repeat as necessary, until you get to your adjusted gross income, the amount that is subject to taxation. deductions are like exemptions, a certain kind and amount of income is exempted from taxation.

more deductions, more exemptions, more money excluded from taxation, and for a given rate of taxation, less tax collected.

by eliminating deductions, fewer deductions, fewer exemptions, less money excluded from taxation, for a given rate of taxation, more tax collected.

***
So. "Neutral doesn't mean more", neutral is neutral, ok, ok. Then where does *this* more money (in the pockets of people) come from?

Romney's said he'd reduce the tax rate. He's said he'd eliminate deductions to make the change revenue neutral. How is this going to make it possible for people to pay less in taxes?

What is it? Is it paying less in taxes or is it revenue neutral?

Revenue neutral may mean (for Romney) the total $ of revenue stays the same.

So if an upper part of the middle class pays less:
---(e.g., no taxes on stock dividends, interest income, capital gains,
no taxes on estates handed down to family members, etc.)

and bottom half pays more:
---(e.g., loss of deductions for home mortage, charity, education, etc.)

to Romney, if the $ amount remains the same, this is "revenue neutral"...

But for those in the bottom half, somehow it doesn't quite feel that way.

Well, "revenue neutral" means changing the tax structure so that the revenue stream for the government remains unchanged. If Romney will not raise taxes on the wealthy, the only other option is to raise them on the non-wealthy.

Sounded to me, last night, like he is trying to claim that he isn't "raising taxes" on the non-wealthy, instead, he's eliminating loopholes.

Same effect on your take-home pay, if you are non-wealthy.

I know you're talking, we are all talking about Romney's plan, not Flint's political philosophies.

Romney's tax plan is NOT incomprehensible. Romney's tax plan is arithmetically impossible.

He's said things that taken together are contradictory--they can not all exist at the same time.

A guy walks up to a pretty girl at the club. "You're gorgeous! Let's go back to my place and I'll f*ck your brains out. I promise I'll respect you in the morning. Don't worry, your virginity will remain intact."

Not all can happen.

Romney's promised to reduce tax rates (by 20%).

Romney's promise to eliminate deductions by an equal amount (undefined--vagueness prevents precise calculations, so estimates are used).

Romney's promised to keep proportion of taxes paid by taxpayers in top 5% the same (60%).

Romney's promised to reduce the amount of taxes paid by the middle class ($200,000/year income).

Romney's promised to reduce the deficit (no amount given that I could find).

How can all of these be managed? No one has produced an explanation that provides room for all these promises.

What I take from this is that Romney tells the audience he's in front of the thing they want to hear. Fine, they all do that. But as the audiences change, the main story changes. Also fine, different people can have different high priorities. However, Romney's just the one guy, and if he's elected, he can only do one thing, produce one net result, and when the statements are incompatible, something's going to get broken. What promise will be broken?

What promise will be broken?

the promise that we're all going to live on planet Mormon (kudos to Els for that one)

Romney's going to do it all - make everything work and not cost us a dime, balance the budget, get people back to work, reduce taxes and...and...in what country is 200,000 the "middle class"- ? coz either I'm in the wrong damn country or I'm being butteffed. With no lube.

I know! We'll sell all the unwanted children women are forced to have to the Irish so they can eat them (they do that over there, you know. Nasty folk. Small hands. Smell like cabbage).

Romney will do what the Koch brothers tell him to do.

and what about this republican majority we've had for two years? why aren't things better now since they are BMOC?

Here's a fun fact:

Shortly after becoming governor of Mass., Mitt Romney was asked by a women's group, to hire more women for his administration. He didn't personally know any more that were qualified, but the women's groups had info on several qualified candidates.

And Mitt did - wound up with a high of 42% of his administration filled with women - which was the highest percentage in any state, at that time.

He didn't talk about it, he didn't canvass and run it by test voters, he didn't wait for some law to be passed to require it.

He just did it. Done! :cool:

What would you guess Obama's hiring rate for women in his administration is?

About 8%.

Now you know why smart women, are changing their preference for President, to Mitt Romney.

You haters can hate all you want, but if were a woman who needs a job, or one looking to move up and break into upper management.

Then you'd be voting for Mitt Romney, no doubt about it.

A lot of people, in order to climb that ladder, will sell their soul to the devil. That's nothing new. I just hope it doesn't hurt too much when they bang their heads on the ridiculously low glass ceiling.

You won't convince this smart woman that Romney gives two poos about any of us. You might convince some women like, I don't know, Ann's ilk that he cares greatly about women's issues. Unfortunately some haven't come such a long way baby and still have stars in their eyes, blinding any sense of reality. Who still believe that a man knows what is better for women than we emotional little ladies know.

That's accurate, and also the opposite of his claim during the debate, where he said that he had noticed the lack of women, and approached the women's groups to get his binders.

:lame:

I don't have to convince anyone of anything. That's the beauty of Conservatism (and good Liberalism). The FACTS are right there, for you to see.

What state Governor has hired more women into his administration - and many of these jobs were SENIOR management positions.

Oh, It was Mitt Romney!

Not Obama with his daughter, who wants the glass ceiling removed - someday - but doesn't care enough to do it in his administration. NO, NO!

Mitt managed it, in one fell swoop.
There was no court order, no law was required, no focus groups had to be consulted, none of the hand-waving and hot air, that is SO COMMON with politicians.

If we don't elect Romney & Ryan in Nov., we will have missed a rare opportunity for a great President, and a great V.P., as well.

Strip clubs also hire a high % of women. They make a special effort to do it too.