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

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.

reply to post by beanandginger


If only real life were that simple.

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.

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.

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.

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.

n/m

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?

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.

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.

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.

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......@@:

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.

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.

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.