Mitt Romney Trickle Up Economics Take From The Poor Give To The Rich

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has put out his tax plan and it is a Robin Hood in reverse. He takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

The Tax Policy Center studied Romney's plan and concluded it raised taxes on lower income families while giving tax cuts to the rich. On top of that, they conclude it would increase the deficit.

"Virtually everybody with a big income is getting a tax cut," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center as reported by Stephan Ohlemacher of Associated Press.

Low income tax payers will get a tax increase of 60%; while corporations and the rich get a tax cut The study showed that on average, households making less than $20,000 would see their taxes increase by more than 60 percent. Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 would get small tax cuts, averaging 2.2 percent, or about $250, the study said. However, wealthy people like Romney making more than $1 million would get tax cuts averaging 15 percent, or about $146,000. The Romney's plan would cut the top corporate tax rate form 35 percent to 25 percent; eliminate investment taxes [capital gains taxes] for the middle class, and make permanent a massive package of tax cuts first enacted under President George W. Bush. The Bush tax cuts are the main reason for the huge debt that strangles the nation.

Romney would also repeal tax increases on the wealthy that were enacted as part of President Barack Obama's health care package. He would also allow the lower and middle class tax cuts enacted under Obama to expire.

The Obama tax cuts targeted low-income families with children, including many people who don't make enough money to pay any federal income taxes. They included an expanded tax credit for college students, a more generous Earned Income Tax Credit for families with three or more children, and a more generous child tax credit for low-income families. Romney wants to get rid of these to pay for the tax cuts to the wealthy.

Despite all Romney's rhetoric about the huge deficits that he blames on Obama, his tax plan of "socialism for the wealthy" would mimic the record-setting deficits run up under George Bush. Overall, Romney's plan would reduce tax revenues by $180 billion in 2015, adding to the federal budget deficit, the study said.

Romney's campaign disputes the estimate using the trickle down economics arguments that have never worked. Campaign spokesmen said that this tax plan would help improve the economy, leading to more revenue.

That was the argument Bush used to get his tax cuts passed. Eight years later, he ran up $6 trillion dollars in debt. That revenue must be hiding in the same place as the WMD's.

Romney has been saying he is going to push for a fundamental redesign of our system. All he is doing is bring back the debunked and failed trickle down economic theories. If they haven't worked in the last ten years of the Bush tax cuts, why would they work under Romney?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Mitt
• Romney
• Trickle
• Up
• Economics
• health
• care
• poor
• Tax
• Policy
• rich
• Wealth
• Barack
• Obama
• Republican
• Robin
• Hood

[DaytonaRoadster]

@Iewkas Making money is not, no one has a problem with Bill Gates, because he didnt use the people's government to exploit capitalism (crony Capitalism, google it) to make money, Gates earned it. You're right the current tax code is shit, but this asshole thinks the poor who makes less than $40,000 should "pay their fair share", but gets all asshurt if he has to pay an extra nickel

[Iewkas]

So let me get this straight: Making money is now perceived as a bad thing, and paying your taxes is bad as well? Did Mitt set up the current tax code? This is just a bunch of hot garbage spewing.

[jelisa46]

@jetbtkng You are so correct.Trickle down has never worked and it has been tried numerous times with disasterous results every time.Saint Reagan did not event it as it had been tried before.Cleveland-Mckinley-Cool­idge-Reagan-Bush2-all fucked the economy and or the upward mobility of the population.Government usually kicks off the technology the private sector benifits from.Kudos to your astute observations mrhoffame.

[jetbtkng]

@mrhoffame EVER HEARD OF THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE of the 10th ammendment, that gives the gov the right to tax to take care of the country & the people of the country, no u need to understand the constitution & what our founding fathers meant, why do u think they put in the ability to ammend it hmmm, the constitution is a living document so that it can change as we as a country change, it wasnt meant to be written in stone, they made it flexible, they were smart guys & would ashamed of the gop.

[jetbtkng]

@mrhoffame WRONG AGAIN ever heard of the space program hmmm, where do u think computer chips came from, & the internet, microwave ovens, just to name a few, all created wealth from THE GOV, like i said a closed mind is an empty mind, & your wrong about infrastructure, it creates jobs, those jobs pay taxes, buy goods that create more jobs that create more tax revenue & so on, its time to raise taxes who make 130,000 +, time to fix our infrastructure, cut the military in half, eliminate DHS, & DEA

[mrhoffame]

@jetbtkng As far as my close mind on infrastructure. The govt doesn't create weatlh right. It never has more money than it had the year before correct? Therfore all those infrastructure/govt jobs.. CANT Substain themeleves. Its like your wife being out work and you hire her an pay her out of your salary but yet spend more each year..What will eventually happen? Is seems you won't play the enire process out when you say "guranteed" job...yes, but not guranteed growth of it's funding.

[mrhoffame]

@jetbtkng cotd...This is kind of what concerns me. When you look back at the constitution ....what part of it talks about the govts role of taking money from their people to invest in technologies it feel were ground breaking or the next poential big thing to create jobs? lol

If I oppose govt over stepping it bounds that means I must be closed minded to new technology and everything else? Thar is really what you get from that?

I get it, its just F the constitution at this point.

[mrhoffame]

@jetbtkng R U serious. I am ALL for new technology. I am for people investing THEIR time, THEIR money, and THIER ideas into creating the next new thing. THEY take the risk and THEY enjoy the rewards or failures. All for that!!!

What I am against it a govt making ME invest and take risk in the decvelopements of markets/technolgy I cleary see has no vialbe market to support it even as it is developed. ie..chevy volt.

You really don't see the dfference? 

[jetbtkng]

@mrhoffame alternative energy is not a waste of time or money, it will be the next big job creator, its amazing how closed minded u are to new technology, & name the others, im still waiting for your awnser to those trillions u said were wasted by the way, as for unions if reagan wouldnt have destroyed them guess what all our jobs wouldnt be in china, more of your closed minded thinking, as for infrastructure thats a guaranteed job creator which is needed as do our roads, bidges, water & sewers.

[mrhoffame]

@jetbtkng Okay, i agree but GM, many banks, Solyndra (sp) and many others...(and don't let me get started on the Bush years lol) is not infrastructure! Matter of fact your infrastructure point become just the next series of prolbems when Union become as big and and powerful and carry as much influence as many other corportations. That is what i was saying before is that govt from left and right can be seen causing this major increase in the merging of business and govt.