It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Campaign is mis-representing....Romney's plan is simple math

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
My son is involved in a grade school debate portraying Mitt Romney.

He needed a simple but effective way to explain how the math works on Mitt Romney’s tax reform plan.

Here is what I gave him….

- Assume each of the 20 kids in your class is either a taxpayer or a non-taxpayer (which could mean retired, unemployed, disabled, etc.)

- Assume 10 are tax payers and 10 are not

- Assume the 10 taxpayers pay an average of 5 cents each in taxes for a total of 50 cents in tax revenues and also assume that the non taxpayers cost 5 cents each for a total of 50 cents.

- Now assume that you can put 3 of the 10 non-taxpayers back to work

- Now you have 13 taxpayers at 5 cents each in taxes which provides 65 cents in tax revenue

- Now you can afford to cut everyone’s taxes by 1 cent (20%) and still have more total tax revenue (52 cents) than you started with because more people are in the work force.

- Also 15 cents that you were paying to support the 3 non-taxpayers that returned to the workforce goes away and your total expense is reduced to 35 cents.

- You just managed an economic turnaround that included the following;

a 33% decrease in unemployment,
a 20% reduction in individual taxes,
a 4% increase in overall tax revenue,
a balanced budget
a surplus of 17 cents (33%) to be applied toward overall debt reduction.


The message to my son’s eighth grade class and everyone in the US is this – The math doesn’t lie.

It doesn’t need to be harder than this.




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by beanandginger
 


If only real life were that simple.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Grade school? How old is your son?

Nevermind. I was thinking age 12 and under. I thought it very odd at that age.

I see you say 8th grade at the bottom - - I missed that.

Sorry.
edit on 15-10-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by beanandginger
 





Now assume that you can put 3 of the 10 non-taxpayers back to work


Now thats a HUGE ASSumption.

Where are these people going to work? Give tax breaks to the rich, and they will hire these people? To do what? Make products to sell to whom? The whole world is in a slow down. Will they make enough to even pay taxes?

Most likely, the 3 of the 10 will be back to work, at Foxconn in China.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


My son understood the concept but insofar Romney hasn't been able to simply articulate how you can lower taxes and raise overall tax revenues at the same time. I was able to provide a simple illustration to my son which I think Romney needs to be able to do to the American people.

The concept is solid - Romney just needs to be able to articulate it in a simple concise manner.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ErEhWoN
 


Hell no. That part is EASY. Just lower the taxes on the top percentiles and they'll start hiring people the same day. No really. Honest. Just like they have in the past. Promise and hope to die. No really.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
n/m

edit on 15-10-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ErEhWoN
 


So what's a better plan - shoot for higher tax revenue based on a wider tax base, lower individual taxes and lower unemployment,

or;

a nanny state with permanent support structure that guarantees the unemployed have no incentive to look for work?
edit on 15-10-2012 by beanandginger because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by ErEhWoN
 


Hell no. That part is EASY. Just lower the taxes on the top percentiles and they'll start hiring people the same day. No really. Honest. Just like they have in the past. Promise and hope to die. No really.


Trickle down is good in concept - - - problem is it has to be applied - - - which it isn't.

Unless law is made making it mandatory - - - greed will prevail.

Romney is a corporate raider. That is just fact.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


The challenge is to control new spending when gains are realized. Washington is 100% at fault here regardless of who's in charge. Reagan and Clinton did a good job of making sure sure revenue outpaced spending but no President since the 60's has had true fiscal responsibility when it comes to spending.

The advantage I see of Romney / Ryan over Obama / Biden is that at least R/R have half the equation correct.
edit on 15-10-2012 by beanandginger because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-10-2012 by beanandginger because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-10-2012 by beanandginger because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by beanandginger

The advantage I see of Romney / Ryan over Obama / Biden is that at least they had half the equation correct.


I'll just bow out now.

I don't see Romney / Ryan as an advantage to or for anything.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by beanandginger
My son is involved in a grade school debate portraying Mitt Romney.

He needed a simple but effective way to explain how the math works on Mitt Romney’s tax reform plan.

Here is what I gave him….

- Assume each of the 20 kids in your class is either a taxpayer or a non-taxpayer (which could mean retired, unemployed, disabled, etc.)

- Assume 10 are tax payers and 10 are not

- Assume the 10 taxpayers pay an average of 5 cents each in taxes for a total of 50 cents in tax revenues and also assume that the non taxpayers cost 5 cents each for a total of 50 cents.

- Now assume that you can put 3 of the 10 non-taxpayers back to work

- Now you have 13 taxpayers at 5 cents each in taxes which provides 65 cents in tax revenue

- Now you can afford to cut everyone’s taxes by 1 cent (20%) and still have more total tax revenue (52 cents) than you started with because more people are in the work force.

- Also 15 cents that you were paying to support the 3 non-taxpayers that returned to the workforce goes away and your total expense is reduced to 35 cents.

- You just managed an economic turnaround that included the following;

a 33% decrease in unemployment,
a 20% reduction in individual taxes,
a 4% increase in overall tax revenue,
a balanced budget
a surplus of 17 cents (33%) to be applied toward overall debt reduction.


The message to my son’s eighth grade class and everyone in the US is this – The math doesn’t lie.

It doesn’t need to be harder than this.



ok, mr simple math......U.S. population is 320 million people, 160 million falls into each one of (your) groups .........30% of 160 million is 48 million....so what you are saying is that romney is going to put back to work 48 million people....right....sure......@@:

edit on 15-10-2012 by jimmyx because: addition



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by beanandginger
 


The whole problem with trickle down and why it doesn't actually work is rather simple. The reasons it doesn't work is people and trade policy. First you have to understand that the so called "job creators" hate creating jobs, it is the exact opposite of what they are trying to accomplish. Job creation is the side effect of demand created by the consumer. With all the consuming that goes on in this country, job acquisition and creation should not ever be an issue. It is an issue however because of trade policies that benefit the "job creators" and do not protect the American working class.

There is no mechanism in place to push wealth back down to the working class. The investor class is free to be as greedy and self-centered as they want to be and invest in manufacturing overseas to reduce costs and increase profits while strangling the rest of the country. This is why Romney's plan doesn't work just like Bush's plan didn't sky rocket economic growth. The only reason it partially worked for Reagan was because trade policy at that time was no where near as unfavorable to the American working class as it is now.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Even if he only puts 3% (16 million back to work) or 1% (5.33 million back to work) the math works the same - individual tax rates can go down while overall tax revenues go up. The math works the same - that's the point of the simple exercise. The math doesn't change if you increase the numbers.

The Obama campaign has repeatedly said the math doesn't work but this plan is proven and has been done before. This is the easy part. The key is that once they realize more revenue they have to not spend it - something Democrats AND Republicans have had trouble with.

Obama is diengenuous when he criticizes this plan and he's wrong headed with his plan. It leads to economic ruin.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by beanandginger
- Assume each of the 20 kids in your class is either a taxpayer or a non-taxpayer (which could mean retired, unemployed, disabled, etc.)


Ok


- Assume 10 are tax payers and 10 are not


No problem


- Assume the 10 taxpayers pay an average of 5 cents each in taxes for a total of 50 cents in tax revenues and also assume that the non taxpayers cost 5 cents each for a total of 50 cents.


Understandable


- Now assume that you can put 3 of the 10 non-taxpayers back to work


Back to work program, ok


- Now you have 13 taxpayers at 5 cents each in taxes which provides 65 cents in tax revenue


More money coming in


- Now you can afford to cut everyone’s taxes by 1 cent (20%) and still have more total tax revenue (52 cents) than you started with because more people are in the work force.


Some tax breaks, ok


- Also 15 cents that you were paying to support the 3 non-taxpayers that returned to the workforce goes away and your total expense is reduced to 35 cents.


If you have 13 people working giving you a total tax revenue of 52 cents (after the tax cut), why is there an extra 15 cents taken off again? I'm not seeing where your getting your numbers.




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by RedShirt73
 


The assumption is that the people who are not working are also costing the government something for benefits, asusming 5 cents in taxes for the employed you also assume 5 cents (or some other figure) in benefits for the unemployed. Assuming 3 of those people go back to work you no longer have to pay those benefits = 15 cents less expense.
edit on 15-10-2012 by beanandginger because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by beanandginger
 


I see math isn't your strong suit.

You have one glaring false assumption in your example.

You are assuming everyone makes the same amount of money and that created jobs are going to make exactly that amount of money as well.


Romney/Ryan are betting on people who suck at math to vote for them.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Job creation is the side effect of demand created by the consumer. With all the consuming that goes on in this country, job acquisition and creation should not ever be an issue.


A poster pointed out in another thread - - in the past we did have "mom pop" businesses. When you consumed their product - - you also supported their suppliers - - who were also probably independent and American based.

Today - - you go to 10 stores and they may all belong to one giant conglomerate - - - who is responsible to its stock holders. Which means profit is all that matters and that means lowest production cost wherever.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by HostileApostle
 


The asumption uses averages - assuming the people working now are a mix of high and low paying salaries and the people with the new jobs are a mix of high and low paying jobs.

One thing is for sure - at least Romney's plan works on paper. Obama's plan is bankrupt on paper and in reality. You can't put more people out of work, support more people on entitlement programs and expect to continually raise taxes to pay for it. EVENTUALLY YOU RUN OUT OF PEOPLE AND WAGES TO TAX TO SUPPORT EVERYONE ELSE.

My math is just fine. Your's is delusionional - unless you'd like to provide number on how Obama's plan works from a mathmatical standpoint.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by beanandginger
My son is involved in a grade school debate portraying Mitt Romney.

He needed a simple but effective way to explain how the math works on Mitt Romney’s tax reform plan.

Here is what I gave him….

- Assume each of the 20 kids in your class is either a taxpayer or a non-taxpayer (which could mean retired, unemployed, disabled, etc.)

- Assume 10 are tax payers and 10 are not


OK...can I also assume you are talking about exclusively Federal Income Tax?
Which accounts for ONLY 40% of Federal tax revenues? And that the remainder of the class (the ones that pay "no tax" funds the revenues with Payroll taxes at 40% and another 10% in other misc. federal taxes? And that State and Local taxes sudenly disappear?

www.taxpolicycenter.org...


Originally posted by beanandginger
- Now assume that you can put 3 of the 10 non-taxpayers back to work


Seriously????

Cuz the troops aren't working? I guess we could find a job for grandma and grandpa at the nursing home...maybe making plastic toys for China? The remainder is primarily the WORKING poor. Folks busting thier ass on 2 to 3 jobs to just pay the bills....and paying taxes at the pump, the cash registar and in every pay check.

And all of it premised on 100% trickle down that has been shown to be BS so many times that in the 1800's they called it the "Horse and Sparrow" theorey...if you feed a horse enough oats the sparrows have something to pick out of it's S&^%!

Sorry your math is fairy dust.....or as they would call it in the 1800's Horsesh*&.
edit on 15-10-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join