Soflasnapper
10-07-2012, 02:27 PM
Either the 12 million new jobs can pay an average of $433,000 each, or at more regular sized salaries, only 162 million new jobs will do the trick!
So eat THAT, Romney doubters!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
[Note, the supposed supply side effects that will give this growth are negated to zero with a revenue neutral plan. Unless one asserts that all that reduced paperwork is highly stimulative, even though it will unemploy accountants and tax attorneys and their staffs.]
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you have a $1.3 trillion annual deficit, and you are going to make it shrink to zero without raising any tax, how many new jobs will the economy have to create? Show your work.
Starting with Romney’s assertion that his policies will lead to 12 million new jobs over four years and provide the government with fresh tax revenue, how close will that come to plugging the gaping hole in the federal budget? Answer: Not very close.
If we assume that those jobs pay $40,000 per year and that each new job pays 20 percent in Federal taxes, the total additional revenue comes to just $96 billion in 2016.
That $96 billion obviously doesn’t come close to the $1 trillion currently projected deficit — not to mention the $300 billion in additional spending Romney proposes for the military and the insurance company subsidies he’s “returning” to Medicare.
Never mind that there’s a problem lowering the top tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent, which will cost $250 billion in revenues. Plugging that hole by taking away the $165 billion in deductions used by top earners simply doesn’t work. Then there’s an even bigger problem making his tax cut of $5 trillion “revenue neutral” while giving the middle class “tax relief.”
But let’s continue taking Romney at his word, even if it’s not worth the paper it isn’t printed on.
Let’s imagine those new jobs are really, really good jobs. How good do they have to be to provide enough new tax revenue to cover the deficit?
At a 25 percent Federal tax rate on all the new income, the average new job would have to pay a mere $433,333 per year to fill the gap. Sign me up for one of those new jobs, please.
The other possibility is that Romney’s policies will magically create even more jobs than he’s assuming. If the new jobs were those $40K per year jobs each paying 20 percent in taxes, we’d need 162.5 million new jobs. For those playing along at home, that’s more jobs than the total current civilian labor force, which stood at 154.6 million last month. </div></div>
From an investment banker (http://www.nationalmemo.com/mitt-romneys-fuzzy-debate-math/)
So eat THAT, Romney doubters!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
[Note, the supposed supply side effects that will give this growth are negated to zero with a revenue neutral plan. Unless one asserts that all that reduced paperwork is highly stimulative, even though it will unemploy accountants and tax attorneys and their staffs.]
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you have a $1.3 trillion annual deficit, and you are going to make it shrink to zero without raising any tax, how many new jobs will the economy have to create? Show your work.
Starting with Romney’s assertion that his policies will lead to 12 million new jobs over four years and provide the government with fresh tax revenue, how close will that come to plugging the gaping hole in the federal budget? Answer: Not very close.
If we assume that those jobs pay $40,000 per year and that each new job pays 20 percent in Federal taxes, the total additional revenue comes to just $96 billion in 2016.
That $96 billion obviously doesn’t come close to the $1 trillion currently projected deficit — not to mention the $300 billion in additional spending Romney proposes for the military and the insurance company subsidies he’s “returning” to Medicare.
Never mind that there’s a problem lowering the top tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent, which will cost $250 billion in revenues. Plugging that hole by taking away the $165 billion in deductions used by top earners simply doesn’t work. Then there’s an even bigger problem making his tax cut of $5 trillion “revenue neutral” while giving the middle class “tax relief.”
But let’s continue taking Romney at his word, even if it’s not worth the paper it isn’t printed on.
Let’s imagine those new jobs are really, really good jobs. How good do they have to be to provide enough new tax revenue to cover the deficit?
At a 25 percent Federal tax rate on all the new income, the average new job would have to pay a mere $433,333 per year to fill the gap. Sign me up for one of those new jobs, please.
The other possibility is that Romney’s policies will magically create even more jobs than he’s assuming. If the new jobs were those $40K per year jobs each paying 20 percent in taxes, we’d need 162.5 million new jobs. For those playing along at home, that’s more jobs than the total current civilian labor force, which stood at 154.6 million last month. </div></div>
From an investment banker (http://www.nationalmemo.com/mitt-romneys-fuzzy-debate-math/)