Jump to content

Overall, higher taxes on the rich historically correlated to higher economic growth


Kevbo_Jones

Recommended Posts

It seems self-evident that tax-cuts should stimulate the economy. It seems so self-evident, that we discuss the theory as if it were a known fact. We don't even question the claim. But history offers us some evidence that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy.

 

In 1921 & 1925, major taxes cut were passed. In the following years a stock market bubble formed while working class wages stagnated, then in 1929 the bubble burst and the economy crashed into the Great Depression.

 

In 1981 a tax cut was passed. The economy sank deeper into recession and stayed in recession for nearly two years.

 

In 1987 major tax cuts were passed.

 

By 1990 growth declined leading into the 1991 recession.

 

In 2001 a tax cut was passed, and another rebate was given in 2008. From 2001 through 2008 the economy grew slower than it did in the preceding 8 while a bubble formed in stocks, housing, and executive salaries. In 2008 the bubble burst, and now the economy in sinking into the worst recession since the Great Depression.

 

Historically, taxes on the middle class and poor have shown no correlation to economic growth. Other factors must have greater influence than tax rates.

 

 

http://conceptualmath.org/philo/taxgrowth.htm

 

Discuss...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I have never been in favor of tax cuts in terms of growing the economy. Granted I wish that the economy would flourish while myself and my family had tax cuts but you can't have both. My whole idea of thinking is that the poor do not pay taxes and the rich do not pay enough taxes. Raise the taxes as a whole by even a small amount, and we'll see a spike in economic growth. This in tandem with decreased government spending is what will pull America out of the negative. It will take time but that is one way to bring America back to past prestige.

 

Another comment is the stimulus package that was in effect in years past. How was this even remotely a good idea? Instead of giving every taxpayer $400(I don't recall the actual amount) take that money and apply it elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flat tax= fixes everything

 

about half the country doesnt pay taxes...imagine if we had them paying something too? we would ALL be better off

 

lol so how does that work? Lets say the rich pay an effective tax rate of 30% currently and the poor pay an effective tax rate of 10%... what should the flat rate be that is fair across the board? can we reasonably cut the difference and put it in the middle? no because the rich already don't pay enough...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol so how does that work? Lets say the rich pay an effective tax rate of 30% currently and the poor pay an effective tax rate of 10%... what should the flat rate be that is fair across the board? can we reasonably cut the difference and put it in the middle? no because the rich already don't pay enough...

 

this post is so retarded i cnt reply to it....do your research and stop looking like a ****...

 

smh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this post is so retarded i cnt reply to it....do your research and stop looking like a ****...

 

smh

 

what was retarded about it? what would you suggest as a % for a flat rate tax? You either end up cutting tax for the rich, or raise it for the poor, neither will be a popular move

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this post is so retarded i cnt reply to it....do your research and stop looking like a ****...

 

smh

 

lol... wow... that was a bit uncalled for. the problem isn't the tax rates the problem is all the tax incentives that are taken advantage of. when the rich are effectively paying the same as middle class and the poor are paying none a 'flat tax' fixes nothing....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what was retarded about it? what would you suggest as a % for a flat rate tax? You either end up cutting tax for the rich' date=' or raise it for the poor, neither will be a popular move[/quote']

 

thats the thing....politics needs to stop being a popularity contest...its about whats best for the country....

 

i dnt know the math to get the exact % rate, but leme put it very simple....

 

 

we have 10 people...

 

we are trying to raise money

 

5 of them pay nothing

 

4 of them pay 15 bucks each

 

1 pays 30 bucks

 

thats a good bit...

 

now if all of them paid 15? we would have alot more....

 

thats as simple as i can lay it out....and thats not counting the big difference of 15% of a poor persons income and 15% of a rich persons....

 

a flat tax is a great idea, and would do great adding in revenue for the govt....people saying that its dumb becouse it helps rich ppl, thats stupid....if the rich guy has more money he can expand, make more jobs, etc....

read into it, its seriously a great idea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats the thing....politics needs to stop being a popularity contest...its about whats best for the country....

 

i dnt know the math to get the exact % rate' date=' but leme put it very simple....

 

 

we have 10 people...

 

we are trying to raise money

 

5 of them pay nothing

 

4 of them pay 15 bucks each

 

1 pays 30 bucks

 

thats 45 dollars....

 

now if all of them paid 15? we would have alot more....

 

thats as simple as i can lay it out....and thats not counting the big difference of 15% of a poor persons income and 15% of a rich persons....

 

a flat tax is a great idea, and would do great adding in revenue for the govt....people saying that its dumb becouse it helps rich ppl, thats stupid....if the rich guy has more money he can expand, make more jobs, etc....

read into it, its seriously a great idea[/quote']

 

I absolutely agree in that the popularity contest needs to cease however, the general public will continue on this route until America crashes. Even then who knows if we'll change.

 

When you explain the tax rate like that it's almost as if you are simply excluding the entire tax code. What you said would work perfectly fine if the tax incentives, deductions, credits, etc disappeared. But as i explained previously in another thread what does that do for the tax accountants, irs, etc? you just put tens of thousands out of job.

 

Also, the premise of expanding rich peoples money etc seems a bit flawed. They are rich for a reason I do not believe this in itself will help them expand into making more jobs. Sure they may be able to spend more like buying another boat but that in itself isn't going to mean our economy will grow. If this were the case then the stimulus funds would have succeed. imo they did not, if your opinion is that they did then there is no point in debating this lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree in that the popularity contest needs to cease however' date=' the general public will continue on this route until America crashes. Even then who knows if we'll change.

 

When you explain the tax rate like that it's almost as if you are simply excluding the entire tax code. [b']What you said would work perfectly fine if the tax incentives, deductions, credits, etc disappeared. But as i explained previously in another thread what does that do for the tax accountants, irs, etc? you just put tens of thousands out of job.[/b]

 

Also, the premise of expanding rich peoples money etc seems a bit flawed. They are rich for a reason I do not believe this in itself will help them expand into making more jobs. Sure they may be able to spend more like buying another boat but that in itself isn't going to mean our economy will grow. If this were the case then the stimulus funds would have succeed. imo they did not, if your opinion is that they did then there is no point in debating this lol.

 

so keep a flawed system to keep jobs in the flawed system?

 

 

Seems-legit.jpg

 

 

 

Consumer spending doesnt help the economy?

 

facepalm.jpg

 

 

NOTE:the stimulous ddnt work, it was a crappy attempt to get ppl spending lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right... I guess the most credible economics experts in the country havent figured out what a 26 year old waiter who's taking an economics class has.

 

I have nothing to prove to you child. That site looks like you made it. Its trash and garbage. I would **** all over that claim but like I said im too lazy and I dont care lol. You already make yourself look stupid enough. I need not go out of my way to prove whats already known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have nothing to prove to you child. That site looks like you made it. Its trash and garbage. I would **** all over that claim but like I said im too lazy and I dont care lol. You already make yourself look stupid enough. I need not go out of my way to prove whats already known.

 

Keep thinking that. Like I said before, you as a waiter and college student have more figured out than top economic minds in the country...:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have nothing to prove to you child. That site looks like you made it. Its trash and garbage. I would **** all over that claim but like I said im too lazy and I dont care lol. You already make yourself look stupid enough. I need not go out of my way to prove whats already known.

 

 

 

"Hi, I claim I'm a *libertarian who supports Gary Johnson*, yet everything I post supports Obama & progressive policies" :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hi' date=' I claim I'm a *libertarian who supports Gary Johnson*, yet everything I post supports Obama & progressive policies" :D[/quote']

 

I made a thread about Gary Johnson as well. Seeing how everyone else is content on red or blue, am I not allowed to have an opinion on those? You don't make any sense at all. When have you ever called Noob on the same thing? Oh, that's right! He conveniently fits into your mold...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so keep a flawed system to keep jobs in the flawed system?

 

 

Seems-legit.jpg

 

 

 

Consumer spending doesnt help the economy?

 

facepalm.jpg

 

 

NOTE:the stimulous ddnt work' date=' it was a crappy attempt to get ppl spending lol[/quote']

 

You know what I meant. The simple fact that a small amount of individuals spending will not help our economy grow. If everyone did then sure but consumer spending hasn't been the issue. We've all been spending enough nothing changes...Just like the stimulus didn't work this wouldn't either.

 

also, my side note of losing jobs was just that, a side note. that was not my main point. If the solution results in the loss of jobs so be it. my point is that in no way will deductions, credits, and other incentives will ever disappear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what I meant. The simple fact that a small amount of individuals spending will not help our economy grow. If everyone did then sure but consumer spending hasn't been the issue. We've all been spending enough nothing changes...Just like the stimulus didn't work this wouldn't either.

 

also' date=' my side note of losing jobs was just that, a side note. that was not my main point. If the solution results in the loss of jobs so be it. my point is that in no way will deductions, credits, and other incentives will ever disappear.[/quote']

 

read into the flat tax, dnt bash it until you read into it

 

3u7th.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

read into the flat tax' date=' dnt bash it until you read into it

 

[img']http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/af221/sherlockstark/3u7th.gif[/img]

 

I have read into it. just have a different belief about it. Just like any other issue I can read two different articles and read how great it is or how terrible it is. I side with that it's probably not a good idea at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats the thing....politics needs to stop being a popularity contest...its about whats best for the country....

 

i dnt know the math to get the exact % rate' date=' but leme put it very simple....

 

 

we have 10 people...

 

we are trying to raise money

 

5 of them pay nothing

 

4 of them pay 15 bucks each

 

1 pays 30 bucks

 

thats 45 dollars....

 

now if all of them paid 15? we would have alot more....

 

thats as simple as i can lay it out....and thats not counting the big difference of 15% of a poor persons income and 15% of a rich persons....

 

a flat tax is a great idea, and would do great adding in revenue for the govt....people saying that its dumb becouse it helps rich ppl, thats stupid....if the rich guy has more money he can expand, make more jobs, etc....

read into it, its seriously a great idea[/quote']

 

The 5 who pay nothing are 2 poor people and 3 millionaires.The 4 who pay $15 are middle class, the one who pays $30 is a billionaire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 5 who pay nothing are 2 poor people and 3 millionaires.The 4 who pay $15 are middle class' date=' the one who pays $30 is a billionaire.[/quote']

 

yea millionares dont pay 0....

the 5 who pay nothing are poor ppl...the ones who pay 15 are middle class and 30 is the rich ppl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and thats fair

 

no its not....

 

im saying there should be a flat percentage tax rate(see herman cains plan)....

 

everyone pays a flat percentage...that would be fair...

 

 

 

i find it funny the people(49%) who dont pay taxes are always yelling the rich need to pay their fair share lol...there not paying ANYTHING....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no its not....

 

im saying there should be a flat percentage tax rate(see herman cains plan)....

 

everyone pays a flat percentage...that would be fair...

 

 

 

i find it funny the people(49%) who dont pay taxes are always yelling the rich need to pay their fair share lol...there not paying ANYTHING....

 

The rich do need to pay their share, as do the poor. The rich have more to give, the government needs the money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rich do need to pay their share' date=' as do the poor. The rich have more to give, the government needs the money[/quote']

 

why do the rich need to pay more than anyone else tho? in the flat rax plan, they pay their fair share a certain percent....the same as everyone else....

 

15% of 10k is different from 15% of 5 million....

 

doing a flat tax IS fair...the tax plan we have right now is unfair and stupid...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most studies show that the rich already pay the vast majority of Federal taxes

 

Depending on the study group, the top 1% pay somewhere between 66% - 90% of all Federal taxes.

Forcing them to pay more would be akin to a witch hunt.

 

And within the wealthy and middle class, all you really achieve by raising taxes is a reduction in incentive and stunted growth

 

Tighter control over spending, and creating jobs by giving business an environment in which to flourish is the key to greater tax revenue, not raising tax thresholds.

 

 

 

 

So vote Romney sucka's....:D. You know it makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If revenue is the goal, not redistribution, then raising taxes on anyone is not the answer. The rates are high enough. As a matter of fact, they're too damn high.(insert pic of that sideburns and gloves guy) It is a matter of indisputable fact that the most revenue to the fed government occured during the Bush years after the tax cuts. How does that work you ask? How can lowering the percentages the feds tax us result in more revenue to feds you ask? Simple. Economic activity and growth which result from favorable conditions(lower taxes) allow more sales tax to be collected, more jobs to be created, and more income earned to be taxed in the first place. ie 10% of 1000 is better than 45% of 100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If revenue is the goal' date=' not redistribution, then raising taxes on anyone is not the answer. The rates are high enough. As a matter of fact, they're too damn high.(insert pic of that sideburns and gloves guy) It is a matter of indisputable fact that the most revenue to the fed government occured during the Bush years after the tax cuts. How does that work you ask? How can lowering the percentages the feds tax us result in more revenue to feds you ask? Simple. Economic activity and growth which result from favorable conditions(lower taxes) allow more sales tax to be collected, more jobs to be created, and more income earned to be taxed in the first place. ie 10% of 1000 is better than 45% of 100.[/quote']

 

22841873.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my feelings on taxing the rich: If you grew up poor and really did bust your *** to earn your money, I don't think you should have to pay more taxes.

 

However, if you're just some lucky ****** who inherited rich, I say either you better be doing damn good things with that money or your *** had better be paying more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my feelings on taxing the rich: If you grew up poor and really did bust your *** to earn your money' date=' I don't think you should have to pay more taxes.

 

However, if you're just some lucky ****** who inherited rich, I say either you better be doing damn good things with that money or your *** had better be paying more.[/quote']

 

Well since no one ever just earns their fortune, they ALWAYS inherit their money. Then lets just take it all away from them. I mean **** they didnt even work for it man. JUST TAKE IT FROM THEM. ITS NOT EVEN THEIRS!

 

 

 

Wait a minute....

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/05/05/many-more-millionaires-by-2020-how-will-your-state-stack-up/

 

So the number of millionaires will grow in the United States and the world as a whole???? BUt wait how can that be if its all inherited? Silly people going out and doing what needs to be done to get where they want to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well since no one ever just earns their fortune' date=' they ALWAYS inherit their money. Then lets just take it all away from them. I mean **** they didnt even work for it man. JUST TAKE IT FROM THEM. ITS NOT EVEN THEIRS!

 

 

 

Wait a minute....

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/05/05/many-more-millionaires-by-2020-how-will-your-state-stack-up/

 

So the number of millionaires will grow in the United States and the world as a whole???? BUt wait how can that be if its all inherited? Silly people going out and doing what needs to be done to get where they want to be.[/quote']

 

You do realize that there has been a disproportionate growth in millionaires since the Reagan-era tax cuts in 1986, right? There is also a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor and middle class. This isn't up for debate. You can preach your anti-tax crap that you learn from your econ professor until you're blue in the face but it doesn't change documented fact. The reason is because the system we have right now is "crony capitalism." The top percentile of wealthy individuals in the nation don't give 2 ***** about America as a whole and only care about profits. Hence why they're contributing to our economic collapse in more ways than just hoarding wealth.

 

If you ask me if I agree with the way things are run, I will tell you that I don't. But my personal opinions and views are irrelevant because the system that is in place isn't going to change any time soon. Especially with 3rd party voters like yourself voting for people that would continue the 1986 tax cut trend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that there has been a disproportionate growth in millionaires since the Reagan-era tax cuts in 1986' date=' right? There is also a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor and middle class. This isn't up for debate. You can preach your anti-tax crap that you learn from your econ professor until you're blue in the face but it doesn't change documented fact. The reason is because the system we have right now is "crony capitalism." The top percentile of wealthy individuals in the nation don't give 2 ***** about America as a whole and only care about profits. Hence why they're contributing to our economic collapse in more ways than just hoarding wealth.

 

If you ask me if I agree with the way things are run, I will tell you that I don't. But my personal opinions and views are irrelevant because the system that is in place isn't going to change any time soon. Especially with 3rd party voters like yourself voting for people that would continue the 1986 tax cut trend.[/quote']

 

Its funny because you think raised taxes will fix the gap between the rich and poor. Youll just create more poor people. You and I both know that the govt is as incompetent as it gets so what are they going to do with the extra income? You cant fix poor people. Nothing has nothing will. Broke is normal in America. Why? Is it really because theres rich people? Honestly? Is it because the rich are not getting taxed enough? If you take more from those that produce are you and I really going to be better off? Or does it still come down to me and you making better decisions with our money?

 

Quick question, what does Gary Johnson want to do with taxes? He not going to raise taxes on the wealthy is he? He wants to abolish business tax correct? He also wants to abolish medicare and medicaid. How do you feel about that? You wanna talk moronic? You consistently defend entitlements yet you are voting for the guy that wants to gut them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question' date=' what does Gary Johnson want to do with taxes? He not going to raise taxes on the wealthy is he? He wants to abolish business tax correct? He also wants to abolish medicare and medicaid. How do you feel about that? You wanna talk moronic? You consistently defend entitlements yet you are voting for the guy that wants to gut them?[/quote']

Libertarian.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its funny because you think raised taxes will fix the gap between the rich and poor. Youll just create more poor people. You and I both know that the govt is as incompetent as it gets so what are they going to do with the extra income? You cant fix poor people. Nothing has nothing will. Broke is normal in America. Why? Is it really because theres rich people? Honestly? Is it because the rich are not getting taxed enough? If you take more from those that produce are you and I really going to be better off? Or does it still come down to me and you making better decisions with our money?

 

Quick question' date=' what does Gary Johnson want to do with taxes? He not going to raise taxes on the wealthy is he? He wants to abolish business tax correct? He also wants to abolish medicare and medicaid. How do you feel about that? You wanna talk moronic? You consistently defend entitlements yet you are voting for the guy that wants to gut them?[/quote']

 

Did you not read my last paragraph? Moreover, have you truly researched Romney's 20% across the board cut?

 

If Romney Cuts Taxes For The Rich By 20%, He Will Have To Raise Taxes For The Middle Class By $1 Trillion

 

A highly amusing website Democratic Party is an easy-to-access critique of the Romney tax plan. Ignore stump speeches or long-winded debates. Just get control of your cursor and chase the access button as it moves and darts about your screen– and PRESTO- up pops the numbers that are easy to follow.

 

First the $5 trillion in tax cuts which reduces the income tax on the wealthy by 20%($2.5 trillion), eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax($700 billion), repeals the high-income payroll tax($300 billion) and hands out a juicy $1 trillion tax cut for corporations. They’re like people you know. Nice clean math. Nice big figures with a lot of zeroes.

 

Then, comes the problem, the headache, or maybe its the head fake. No identification of a single loophole that will be closed. No concrete exposition about raising the capital gains tax on rich people. Our friends at the Democratic Party headquarters have estimated the savings for “ending all tax benefits for the wealthy” at $1.7 trillion; eliminating ALL corporate tax benefits to offset the corporate tax cut-$1.1 trillion and then another $1 trillion of middle class tax benefits to pay for the middle class cut=- another $1 trillion.

 

Imagine the chaos, the bitterness, the social unrest that would occur. But, then realize these measures only get back $4 trillion. There’s another $1 trillion to go.

 

Even studies by that staunch Republican economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen “concede that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000.(I know you don't care about that, because it doesn't affect you. But it sure as hell affects me) So much for campaign rhetoric favoring the 1% over the 99%. (In the interest of fairness I want to report that some readers of this blog have pointed out that Harvard economist Martin Feldstein wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal on August 28,2012, underscoring that IRS data from 2009 shows Romney’s plan “would not require a large tax increase on the middle class to avoid raising the deficit.”

 

You don’t believe this? Then, please consult “There’s a $1 Trillion Hole in Romney’s Budget Math,” by Benn Steil and Dinah Walker of the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2012/10/19/if-romney-cuts-taxes-for-the-rich-by-20-he-will-have-to-raise-taxes-for-the-middle-class-by-1-trillion/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you not read my last paragraph? Moreover' date=' have you truly researched Romney's 20% across the board cut?

 

If Romney Cuts Taxes For The Rich By 20%, He Will Have To Raise Taxes For The Middle Class By $1 Trillion

 

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2012/10/19/if-romney-cuts-taxes-for-the-rich-by-20-he-will-have-to-raise-taxes-for-the-middle-class-by-1-trillion/[/quote']

 

i will take a look into this(even tho it seems like crap)

 

but last i heard 100k-200k isnt middle class lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i will take a look into this(even tho it seems like crap)

 

but last i heard 100k-200k isnt middle class lol

 

200k isn't, but 100k would be. Obviously this is just an opinion.

 

My family hits about 105k between 4 working, 2 full time, 2 part time, and the little brother still at school, I would say that we do border on middle class, but have working class values

Link to comment
Share on other sites

200k isn't' date=' but 100k would be. Obviously this is just an opinion.

 

My family hits about 105k between 4 working, 2 full time, 2 part time, and the little brother still at school, I would say that we do border on middle class, but have working class values[/quote']

 

My household is at the lower end of that group.(2 working, $150k-ish) We are far from wealthy and are very financially conservative. Meaning minimal household overhead, no car payments, housing costs as low as we can manage given number of residents, scouring food and goods sales, etc... Etc. The main reason for this is because we get taxed out the ***, even more so because wifey makes commission which gets utterly destroyed by federal withholdings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you not read my last paragraph? Moreover' date=' have you truly researched Romney's 20% across the board cut?

 

If Romney Cuts Taxes For The Rich By 20%, He Will Have To Raise Taxes For The Middle Class By $1 Trillion

 

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2012/10/19/if-romney-cuts-taxes-for-the-rich-by-20-he-will-have-to-raise-taxes-for-the-middle-class-by-1-trillion/[/quote']

 

http://www.nber.org/feldstein/wsj08282012.html

 

his own source doesnt agree with this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My household is at the lower end of that group.(2 working' date=' $150k-ish) We are far from wealthy and are very financially conservative. Meaning minimal household overhead, no car payments, housing costs as low as we can manage given number of residents, scouring food and goods sales, etc... Etc. The main reason for this is because we get taxed out the ***, even more so because wifey makes commission which gets utterly destroyed by federal withholdings.[/quote']

 

so you think doing the same to rich people will solve pplz problems?

 

think man....

 

im piss poor, but i know taxing the rich more is far from the key

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My household is at the lower end of that group.(2 working' date=' $150k-ish) We are far from wealthy and are very financially conservative. Meaning minimal household overhead, no car payments, housing costs as low as we can manage given number of residents, scouring food and goods sales, etc... Etc. The main reason for this is because we get taxed out the ***, even more so because wifey makes commission which gets utterly destroyed by federal withholdings.[/quote']

 

my parents have paid off their house and car etc. so they have done a lot to minimise their outgoings. we're doing alright, but never spectacularly. If I needed to, I could take around 2 grand in a student loan and just use it for general living purposes, but I don't want the extra debt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you think doing the same to rich people will solve pplz problems?

 

think man....

 

im piss poor' date=' but i know taxing the rich more is far from the key[/quote']

 

Someone who makes upwards of $400m can pay the 35% they're supposed to if I'm expected to pay my 28%. The difference being that I don't have the assets and capabilities to dodge a significant portion of my 28% through capital gains and loopholes. Now if I were to go off of what Romney claims about closing these loopholes(which he has not specified in the least bit) and allowing me to keep my deductions the math does not add up. It's simple arithmetic. The money has to come from somewhere, and if I were a betting man, I'd wager a large sum that Romney wouldn't milk his own bracket for lost revenue. So where do you think its going to come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...