Obama vs. Romney: Round 2- The Hofstra University Town Hall debate

[nonniey]

Tonight is the night! Clash of the Titans Round II!!! Will Obama prove that he has mad skills when it comes to oral? Or will Mitt Romney prove that he is a Master Debater! Which man will end up on top, and which man will end up on bottom and taking a pounding? Find out tomorrow at 9pm (8 central and pacific).

This is how network plugs for the debate tomorrow should be written.

No that isn't how it should be done. The first words should be TUESDAY! TUESDAY! TUESDAY! SEE MITT ROMNEY TAKE ON............

[Larry]

More credits have been identified than $5 trillion. Even the widely cited by the President TPC study found all but $86 billion/year. That equates to $4 trillion over ten years in credits that could be eliminated. Others have found additional credits. Also the baseline that the TPC points to is not the most widely assumed baseline. In the end, you get past the size of his tax cuts, meaning there is some latitude in how to make it work.

However, by all means, please keep staring at his belt.

Or maybe, paying attention to what he has said he will do, instead of paying attention to the things he says he'll accomplish, but he won't tell us how.

1) He's told us he's going to cut $5T in taxes.

2) Then he claims that he's going to do something else, that will make it work out, but he won't say what.

3) Some people (including, apparently, you) have claimed that well, if he eliminates all deductions and credits from the entire tax code, then well, he can almost break even.

4) But the Really Big Whopper, is the claim that well, if he manages to lower tax rates and eliminate deductions enough so that the whole thing comes out to be the same, then leaving taxes the same will cause miraculous economic growth

Please, tell us all how not lowering taxes causes this miraculous economic growth.

[twa]

perhaps because he clearly does not agree with your assessment,nor clearly your assertion a debate should be like a interview

despite your attempt to run all over him

[JMS]

More credits have been identified than $5 trillion.

NO THEY HAVEN'T.. Other than Big Bird, Mitt Romney hasn't identified any cuts... No specifics on his cuts at all.... And shame on you for not knowing that as it's been plastered across every news source for months.

Even the widely cited by the President TPC study found all but $86 billion/year. That equates to $4 trillion over ten years in credits that could be eliminated. Others have found additional credits. Also the baseline that the TPC points to is not the most widely assumed baseline. In the end, you get past the size of his tax cuts, meaning there is some latitude in how to make it work.

The tax policy center absolutely found trillions in cuts... Only Romney rejected those cuts didn't he. It would mean stripping the middle class of the home mortgage reduction, and decimating the defense budget and education... All things Mitt has pledged not to do. Romney has taken off the table all the biggest discretionary items in the budget or loopholes... The TPC has said what Romney is proposing is mathematically impossible.

However, by all means, please keep staring at his belt.

Shame on your for not doing any due diligence on anything. Shame on you for claiming to be a conservative and not checking up anything about what your candidate is proposing.

A vote for Romney is a vote for a two trillion dollar deficit and the United States becoming a third world country... period.

as for the TPC ..

The Tax Policy Center (TPC) has completed a preliminary analysis of the Romney plan, based on information posted on the campaign website and email exchanges with campaign policy advisors. Because we have received no details on proposals to reduce tax preferences, the TPC analysis does not include those proposals

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 03:06 PM ----------

perhaps because he clearly does not agree with your assessment,nor clearly your assertion a debate should be like a interview

despite your attempt to run all over him

A debate should not be like an interview... it should be like a debate... not a joint press conference which is what the Jim Liehrr debate was... He was roundly ridiculed in the press, and no journalist will lend their name to such a debacle again.

Nor should they. It was a national embarrassment.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 03:06 PM ----------

1) He's told us he's going to cut $5T in taxes.

No actually in front of 40 million Americans he told us he wasn't going to cut taxes by 5T... didn't know what Obama was talking about or where he came up with 5T.... and he said he wouldn't cut taxes at all on the wealthiest Americans... which is direct contradiction

of his entire campaign..

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This just in...

Obama will say that Romney plans to cut taxes by $5 trillion.

Next, he'll look at Romney's belt and tell people that Romney's only 3 feet tall.

He'll claim he's not lying about either issue.

How much do you think Romney does plan to cut taxes by? If you think his tax plan is revenue neutral, how do you think he'll get it to neutral?

[Wrong Direction]

How much do you think Romney does plan to cut taxes by? If you think his tax plan is revenue neutral, how do you think he'll get it to neutral?

Honestly, I think that his plan will have to be revenue neutral based on his promises but that he won't be able to get political agreement to make it so. Therefore, he'll have to water it down by reducing rates something like 15% instead of 20%. I do think his plan is mathematically possible, but I don't believe politically it'll happen. That doesn't mean it's not a laudable goal to simplify our tax code and lower corporate rates. I absolutely think it is.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Honestly, I think that his plan will have to be revenue neutral based on his promises but that he won't be able to get political agreement to make it so. Therefore, he'll have to water it down by reducing rates something like 15% instead of 20%. I do think his plan is mathematically possible, but I don't believe politically it'll happen. That doesn't mean it's not a laudable goal to simplify our tax code and lower corporate rates. I absolutely think it is.

So, basically you think he's not going to accomplish what he says he's going to?

Second, say he reduces rates by 15% not 20%, do you think that will be revenue neutral? Or is that a tax break for the whole of America?

[twa]

A debate should not be like an interview... it should be like a debate... not a joint press conference which is what the Jim Liehrr debate was... He was roundly ridiculed in the press, and no journalist will lend their name to such a debacle again.

Nor should they. It was a national embarrassment.

He clearly disagrees with you....you think he will not do it again?

[Wrong Direction]

So, basically you think he's not going to accomplish what he says he's going to?

Second, say he reduces rates by 15% not 20%, do you think that will be revenue neutral? Or is that a tax break for the whole of America?

I don't believe just about any politician when they tell me they're going to accomplish great things. Hopefully I'm not alone.

I do think that the Romney tax plan will be revenue neutral in the end. The rate reductions might be slightly less than 20% across the board. That's just my guess though. Who knows, maybe Congress and Romney have an epiphany and decide to totally re-work our entire tax system? I think anything's possible in view of our debt situation, though this is clearly unlikely.

I really think Romney will be a fair broker of the conversation and definitely willing to compromise on any number of issues. This will anger R's and delight D's, if it happens as I think it would. I don't think he's nearly the ideologue that many seem to think he is.

[88Comrade2000]

3 WEEKS and 1 day until the 2016 campaign starts on 11/7/12.

2 Debates in the next week. This is the election basically, baring some unexpected event or a late October surprise.

I say the current state of the race has Obama still in position to be reelected but the momentum has clearly been in Romney's direction where Romney's nipping on Obama's heals. Should Obama lose tonight's debate; then Romney should break through for good and not just in states he needs to get 270.

Obama still has the electoral math in his favor but it's slipping. Also, it appears the early voting is helping him out.

If Romney just draws even with Obama, I don't think it changes the momentum that is in Romney's favor. If he crushes Obama then it's just about over for Obama. Obama needs to call Romney out on all his lies- win on substance and do it with style. Convince those voters who were thinking of Romney to realize that Romney is lying. His numbers don't add up and he's not telling you what he will really do. Of course, Romney could hit back at Obama; what are you going to do?

[Wrong Direction]

Yup. This is a huge night, for sure. I bet the ratings are through the roof again.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I don't believe just about any politician when they tell me they're going to accomplish great things. Hopefully I'm not alone.

I do think that the Romney tax plan will be revenue neutral in the end. The rate reductions might be slightly less than 20% across the board. That's just my guess though. Who knows, maybe Congress and Romney have an epiphany and decide to totally re-work our entire tax system? I think anything's possible in view of our debt situation, though this is clearly unlikely.

I really think Romney will be a fair broker of the conversation and definitely willing to compromise on any number of issues. This will anger R's and delight D's, if it happens as I think it would. I don't think he's nearly the ideologue that many seem to think he is.

I don't get this at all though... if they are revenue neutral, just on their own.... how is that helping anything? Overall America is going to pay the same amount in taxes, but somehow this is a great tax break?

Don't you think the tax break he's talking about is unevenly tilted to the wealthier Americans? And the middle class will have to pick up more of the bill to make it "revenue neutral."

[88Comrade2000]

I don't believe just about any politician when they tell me they're going to accomplish great things. Hopefully I'm not alone.

I do think that the Romney tax plan will be revenue neutral in the end. The rate reductions might be slightly less than 20% across the board. That's just my guess though. Who knows, maybe Congress and Romney have an epiphany and decide to totally re-work our entire tax system? I think anything's possible in view of our debt situation, though this is clearly unlikely.

I really think Romney will be a fair broker of the conversation and definitely willing to compromise on any number of issues. This will anger R's and delight D's, if it happens as I think it would. I don't think he's nearly the ideologue that many seem to think he is.

If Moderate Mitt rears his head; he will not be renominated. Mitt will have to do the right wings bidding.

Actually, I think the big story of Election 2012 won't be the reelection of Obama or Election of Mitt Romney. Obama wins, he faced a crappy candidate with no real beliefs and was saying anything to win. Romney wins, people will have had enough of Obama and people don't believe things will get better under a second OBama term. I think the bigger story of election of 2012 will be the aftermath of the election. Depending on the results, who will be controlling things? That will determine what will get done or not during the next 2 years. If Romney loses, watching the coming Republican implosion will be fun to watch.

[twa]

I really think Romney will be a fair broker of the conversation and definitely willing to compromise on any number of issues. This will anger R's and delight D's, if it happens as I think it would. I don't think he's nearly the ideologue that many seem to think he is.

Seems a accurate projection to me.

and also why I have opposed him

[DjTj]

I really think Romney will be a fair broker of the conversation and definitely willing to compromise on any number of issues. This will anger R's and delight D's, if it happens as I think it would. I don't think he's nearly the ideologue that many seem to think he is.

You have a hopey-changey attitude reminiscent of young Democrats in the fall of 2008. Obama was going to sit down with Republicans and work things out through compromise, but it didn't really work that way. I think that Dubya showed up in Washington with the same plan until Congress couldn't agree on a Social Security plan or an immigration plan, and he decided to invade Iraq instead. Clinton did actually make some good deals with the Republicans, but only after the government shut down several times ... every candidate seems like they will be the one to break the partisan stalemate, but then Washington reality sets in.

[Larry]

I don't believe just about any politician when they tell me they're going to accomplish great things. Hopefully I'm not alone.

I do think that the Romney tax plan will be revenue neutral in the end. The rate reductions might be slightly less than 20% across the board. That's just my guess though. Who knows, maybe Congress and Romney have an epiphany and decide to totally re-work our entire tax system? I think anything's possible in view of our debt situation, though this is clearly unlikely.

I really think Romney will be a fair broker of the conversation and definitely willing to compromise on any number of issues. This will anger R's and delight D's, if it happens as I think it would. I don't think he's nearly the ideologue that many seem to think he is.

1) Oh, I certainly don't think he's a ideologue. Haven't seen anybody with a straight face claim that he is.

2) That said, though, I think you're making a huge assumption when you claim that Romney won't even propose a tax cut unless he has a detailed plan in place that is revenue neutral.

I think it's just about guaranteed that, if he's elected, he'll do exactly what he's doing now: Propose cutting income taxes 20% (and completely eliminating those pesky taxes that only hit millionaires), and then ask Congress to find a way to make it revenue neutral. (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)

Congress will pass the tax cuts, de-fund Big Bird and Planned Parenthood, get rid of the part of the child tax credit that Obama gets credit for (but not the part that W gets credit for), and quit.

• Revenues will drop. The deficit will increase. (Just like they did when Reagan cut taxes. Just like they did when W cut taxes.)
  
• The Republicans will insist that it's somebody else's fault. (Just like they did when Reagan cut taxes. Just like they did when W cut taxes.)
  
• After a couple years, revenues will increase. (Just like they do, almost every year, anyway.)
  
• Republicans will claim that this increase is because of their tax cuts. (Just like they did for Reagan. Just like they did for W.)
  
• After a year or two of growth (meaning, 3-4 years after the tax cut), revenues will be back to where they were before the cut. (Republicans will claim that this proves that tax cuts not only do not increase the deficit, but they actually make them go down)

But then, that's just an opinion. (Based on seeing this dance, before.)

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 04:20 PM ----------

I don't get this at all though... if they are revenue neutral, just on their own.... how is that helping anything? Overall America is going to pay the same amount in taxes, but somehow this is a great tax break?

That, to me, is the biggest whopper in the whole thing he's trying to sell.

The idea that he's going to keep taxes exactly the same as they are now, and it's going to have this huge stimulative effect on the economy.

(Sounds kind of like promising to keep Medicare exactly the same as it is now, but it will save us so much money that in 20 years, it will have paid for the military increases and the tax cuts that I'm going to hand out, right now, and completely balance the federal budget.)

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 04:24 PM ----------

I think the bigger story of election of 2012 will be the aftermath of the election. Depending on the results, who will be controlling things?

If Romney wins? Boehner. With unwanted demands from the Tea Partiers.

If Obama wins? Still Boehner, but he won't be quite as powerful.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 04:27 PM ----------

I think that Dubya showed up in Washington with the same plan until Congress couldn't agree on a Social Security plan or an immigration plan, and he decided to invade Iraq instead.

Some minor chronology problems with your story, there.

W (or at least his administration) was planning to invade Iraq before he was even elected.

He didn't mention Social Security till he was campaigning for his second term.

[Wrong Direction]

I don't get this at all though... if they are revenue neutral, just on their own.... how is that helping anything? Overall America is going to pay the same amount in taxes, but somehow this is a great tax break?

From his 59-point plan:

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

Tax policy shapes almost everything individuals and enterprises do as they participate in the economy. With bad design, tax policy can discourage economic activity. With good design, it can encourage it. Yet our current tax system is an accretion of decades of patchwork decisions that came into being with no systematic thought for their implications for job creation or economic growth. Every year, individual taxpayers are forced to confront a Rube Goldberg contraption of bewildering complexity that leads to a range of undesirable outcomes, including the fact that millions of Americans have to pay hundreds of dollars to have their tax returns prepared by a professional who understands the rules. Corporations, for their part, are subject to rules and regulations that all too often encourage tax gamesmanship while discouraging reinvestment in the American economy.

Mitt Romney will push for a fundamental redesign of our tax system. He recognizes that we need to simplify the system. He also recognizes that we need both to lower rates and to broaden the tax base so that taxation becomes an instrument for promoting economic growth. We also need to find a way to keep the tax structure stable so that investors and entrepreneurs are not confronted with a constantly shifting set of rules that makes it impossible for them to plan ahead.

In the long run, Mitt Romney will pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system that includes lower and flatter rates on a broader tax base. The approach taken by the Bowles-Simpson Commission is a good starting point for the discussion. The goal should be a simpler, more efficient, user-friendly, and less onerous tax system. Every American would be readily able to ascertain what they owed and why they owed it, and many forms of unproductive tax gamesmanship would be brought to an end. Conversely, tax reform should not be used as an under-the-radar means of raising taxes. Where reforms that simplify the code or encourage growth have the effect of increasing the tax burden, they should be offset by reductions in marginal rates. Washington’s problem is not too little revenue, but rather too much spending.

So, he's saying that simplification will promote efficiency, fairness and a better environment for economic planning. But that's not all his tax plan is about. I personally think the growth portion will come from the corporate tax overhaul.

Don't you think the tax break he's talking about is unevenly tilted to the wealthier Americans? And the middle class will have to pick up more of the bill to make it "revenue neutral."

I understand why the left wants to assume that Mitt will break his plan and make the middle class pay more, however, it's unclear why he'd choose that promise to break? It seems obvious to me that if he needs to adjust the plan to get political agreement, he wouldn't do it by raising taxes on the middle class because that would never achieve the desired political agreement. I think that's a red herring, to be honest.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 04:34 PM ----------

Seems a accurate projection to me.

and also why I have opposed him

I understand this philosophy in the primary. Now, he's clearly the more conservative candidate. I don't mean to say that I think he'll become a massive liberal overnight.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

From his 59-point plan:

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

So, he's saying that simplification will promote efficiency, fairness and a better environment for economic planning. But that's not all his tax plan is about. I personally think the growth portion will come from the corporate tax overhaul.

I understand why the left wants to assume that Mitt will break his plan and make the middle class pay more, however, it's unclear why he'd choose that promise to break? It seems obvious to me that if he needs to adjust the plan to get political agreement, he wouldn't do it by raising taxes on the middle class because that would never achieve the desired political agreement. I think that's a red herring, to be honest.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 04:34 PM ----------

I understand this philosophy in the primary. Now, he's clearly the more conservative candidate. I don't mean to say that I think he'll become a massive liberal overnight.

You said he's not going to follow through with his plan, not me.

So, we are back to the old, lowering tax rates increases revenue. This is the biggest lie in the history of politics and its been getting thrown around for 30 years now.

[Wrong Direction]

You have a hopey-changey attitude reminiscent of young Democrats in the fall of 2008.

Not at all. I just think that Mitt has been successful in getting things done in his life. I don't view him as set in his ways as I think Obama is.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 04:34 PM ----------

You said he's not going to follow through with his plan, not me.

So, we are back to the old, lowering tax rates increases revenue. This is the biggest lie in the history of politics and its been getting thrown around for 30 years now.

No it's not. The laffer curve is real. However, we're at a different place on that curve today w/r/t individual rates, IMO.

[nonniey]

I don't get this at all though... if they are revenue neutral, just on their own.... how is that helping anything? Overall America is going to pay the same amount in taxes, but somehow this is a great tax break?

Don't you think the tax break he's talking about is unevenly tilted to the wealthier Americans? And the middle class will have to pick up more of the bill to make it "revenue neutral."

There would be less of a tax penalty penalty for investing and Ironically this would end up increasing collections on the super rich and corporations vice a tax rate increase that targets primarily small business.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Not at all. I just think that Mitt has been successful in getting things done in his life. I don't view him as set in his ways as I think Obama is.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 04:34 PM ----------

No it's not. The laffer curve is real. However, we're at a different place on that curve today w/r/t individual rates, IMO.

The laffer curve is not real for two reasons: 1) we don't know its actual shape, and 2) we don't know where we are on it. Yes its true that if you have 100% tax you will probably end up with 0 revenues. But, there's not good evidence of where we are on it or that its this perfect bell curve.

You just inputed a whole lot of assumptions based upon nothing, essentially.

Seriously, people need to do some actual research on the laffer curve if they are going to use it as a continuous reason for lower taxes.

[Wrong Direction]

But then, that's just an opinion. (Based on seeing this dance, before.

I think your opinion is wrong mostly because I think times are different now. When Reagan took office, the top tax rate was like 73% (or something close). When Bush came into office, we were faced with theoretical surpluses. The Democrats in the Senate will not allow a massive tax break through when they can hold the Bush tax cuts hostage.

I think the one place Romney might be able to do what you fear is on the business side. The corporate rate actually is too high (my opinion), so if there's a deal where the tax cut becomes a net cut, it'll be on the corporate side. There, Dems may be afraid to anger their biggest contributors, so they'll go along.

All total speculation, of course.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 04:44 PM ----------

The laffer curve is not real for two reasons: 1) we don't know its actual shape, and 2) we don't know where we are on it. Yes its true that if you have 100% tax you will probably end up with 0 revenues. But, there's not good evidence of where we are on it or that its this perfect bell curve.

You just inputed a whole lot of assumptions based upon nothing, essentially.

Seriously, people need to do some actual research on the laffer curve if they are going to use it as a continuous reason for lower taxes.

You just described it as being real. I agree that it's impossible to know the shape or where we are on it. Frankly, I think that differs by sector. Things are never as simple as a perfectly distributed bell curve. I certainly agree with that. The Laffer curve is about economic theory, not perfectly modeling policy.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

You just described it as being real. I agree that it's impossible to know the shape or where we are on it. Frankly, I think that differs by sector. Things are never as simple as a perfectly distributed bell curve. I certainly agree with that. The Laffer curve is about economic theory, not perfectly modeling policy.

Its not real in the sense that you can't say "the laffer curve justifies lowering tax rates." Your justification of the tax cuts as increasing revenue based upon the laffer curve is not real. Your argument based upon it is way way too simplistic.

I could be wrong, but I think there are even economic studies that are peer reviewed that say the laffer curve is wrong that revenues will be 0 at 100% tax.

But if you are going to say the laffer curve is real, but then agree that we don't know where we are on it, you have to agree with me that the laffer curve does not indicate that revenues will go up with lower taxes.

Here, this is just from Wikipedia, which I hate to cite, but I'm not economist:

In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a paper called "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates". This paper considered the impact of a stylized reduction of 10% in the then existing marginal rate of federal income tax in the US (for example, if those facing a 25% marginal federal income tax rate had it lowered to 22.5%). Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies, that is, it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses. In the paper's most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lost revenue from the lower tax rate would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter. Through increased budget deficits, the tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy will be paid for — plus interest — by taxes borne relatively evenly by all taxpayers.[13] The paper points out that these projected shortfalls in revenue would have to be made up by federal borrowing: the paper estimates that the federal government would pay an extra $200 billion in interest over the decade covered by the paper's analysis.[6]

To me, it looks like in 2005, the CBO disputed your exact point. The deficit will increase or the tax cuts given to the wealthiest will be paid by all taxpayers, and the federal government will borrow more money to pay for these tax cuts.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 04:51 PM ----------

And on more thing from Wikipedia:

Laffer assumes that the government would collect no income tax at a 100% tax rate because there would be no incentive to earn income. Research has shown that it is possible for a Laffer curve to continuously slope upwards all the way to 100%.[8] Additionally, the Laffer curve depends on the assumption that tax revenue is used to provide a public good that is separable in utility and separate from labor supply, which may not be true in practice.[9] The Laffer curve is also too simplistic in that it assumes a single tax rate and a single labor supply. Actual systems of public finance are more complex. There is serious doubt about the relevance of considering a single marginal tax rate.[4] In addition, revenue may well be a multivalued function of tax rate - for instance, an increase in tax rate to a certain percentage may not result in the same revenue as a decrease in tax rate, even if the final tax rate in both situations is the same.

Essentially.... this is not sound economics.

[Wrong Direction]

But if you are going to say the laffer curve is real, but then agree that we don't know where we are on it, you have to agree with me that the laffer curve does not indicate that revenues will go up with lower taxes.

I think there's evidence that corporate revenues would go up with tax reform. I'm less sure of this with individual income tax reform. On capital gains, I'd like to see a study on investment behaviors. 15% is too low for the rich to pay. However, my day-trader friend pays 15% multiple times over and keeps reinvesting that money. The more he can re-invest, the more he makes, the more the 15% hits. In a simple world, I'd say we should raise his taxes. In reality, I don't know the answer.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Your wrong. Here's more evidence of how you're wrong:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/09/mike-pence/mike-pence-says-raising-taxes-lowers-tax-revenues/

First, we should note that if you take Pence's statement at its most literal, it's not correct. The Internal Revenue Service has published detailed tables of tax collections, and they go up almost every year. They went up after tax increases passed in 1990 and 1993, and, when taxes were cut in 2001, collections dropped. But it's a bit more complicated than that.

What you are doing is putting the cart before the horse. You want lower taxes and you are using as justification, and really a foundation for your argument, a theory that is not generally accepted in its field. And to the extent it can be examined, it looks to be false.

Also from politifact and their research:

The tax experts we spoke with agreed with Stockman. In this climate, raising the top tax rates from 35 to 39.6 percent would increase revenues. The effect Pence is talking about would not happen at this level of taxation, they said.

"There is some rate at which it would be true," said Roberton Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "But I don't think there are any established economists who would argue that we're near that."

"At current tax rates, most tax increases will increase revenues, at least in the short and medium run," said Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation. "The caveat is that in a fragile economy, it can be unpredictable."

"There is no real dispute among economists that broad-based federal income tax cuts reduce revenue (except when tax rates are much higher than they are now)," said Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "Revenue is lower than it would be without the Bush tax cuts -- liberal and conservative economists are in accord on this question."

Your argument is not supported by anything. Its a pipe dream that you lower taxes, and POOF, we get more revenue. Its false, not true, unsupported. Its a bill of goods that the wealthiest people in the country try to sell to you through the GOP every year so that THEY AND THEY ALONE can see more money in their pockets. They don't give a crap about this trickle down. They want their money and they came up with this BS theory to get you to go along with it.