Mitt's tax plan: Cut taxes for the rich, raise them on everyone else

[Lief]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html

Mitt Romney's plan to overhaul the tax code would produce cuts for the richest 5 percent of Americans — and bigger bills for everybody else, according to an independent analysis set for release Wednesday.

The study was conducted by researchers at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, who seem to bend over backward to be fair to the Republican presidential candidate. To cover the cost of his plan — which would reduce tax rates by 20 percent, repeal the estate tax and eliminate taxes on investment income for middle-class taxpayers — the researchers assume that Romney would go after breaks for the richest taxpayers first.

They even look at what would happen if Republicans’ dreams for tax reform came true and the proposal generated significant revenue through economic growth.

None of it helped Romney. His rate-cutting plan for individuals would reduce tax collections by about $360 billion in 2015, the study says. To avoid increasing deficits — as Romney has pledged — the plan would have to generate an equivalent amount of revenue by slashing tax breaks for mortgage interest, employer-provided health care, education, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and child care — all breaks that benefit the middle class.

“It is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment and that does not result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers,” the study concludes.

Even if tax breaks “are eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible, there would still be a shift in the tax burden of roughly $86 billion [a year] from those making over $200,000 to those making less” than that.

What would that mean for the average tax bill? Millionaires would get an $87,000 tax cut, the study says. But for 95 percent of the population, taxes would go up by about 1.2 percent, an average of $500 a year.

The Romney campaign on Wednesday declined to address the specifics of the analysis, dismissing it as a “liberal study.”

If you're not a millionaire and you're voting for this guy, you're an idiot.

[cavalcade]

If you're not a millionaire and you're voting for this guy, you're an idiot.

George W. Bush cut taxes for everyone, or at least the overwhelming majority of the country.  Were people who voted against him idiots?

Edit: Romney's and Obama's tax proposals are academic anyway.  The question is what would pass the House and Senate, and my guess- guess!- is that the answer is neither.

[True Federalist]

If you're not a millionaire and you're voting for this guy, you're an idiot.

George W. Bush cut taxes for everyone, or at least the overwhelming majority of the country.  Were people who voted against him idiots?

Did you bother to read before posting?  The study found that if Romney does what he says he wants in taxes, only a small minority at the top would benefit with an overwhelming majority seeing a tax hike.

[cavalcade]

If you're not a millionaire and you're voting for this guy, you're an idiot.

George W. Bush cut taxes for everyone, or at least the overwhelming majority of the country.  Were people who voted against him idiots?

Did you bother to read before posting?  The study found that if Romney does what he says he wants in taxes, only a small minority at the top would benefit with an overwhelming majority seeing a tax hike.

Yes.  The implied argument in the OP is that people should vote for the candidate who offers them lower taxes than the other, or they are idiots; Obama offers middle-class Americans lower taxes than Romney, according to the study; therefore, middle-class Americans who vote for Romney are idiots.  Surely the same logic should apply to other elections, no?  And surely millionaires voting for Obama over Romney are idiots?

[Lief]

No, the implied argument is that people shouldn't vote for politicians that want to take away their money to give to the rich. If Mitt Romney were proposing that we raise taxes on all Americans to fight the deficit, that would be one thing; but he's literally proposing that we raise taxes on 95% of America so that the rich get to keep more of their money.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The House voted today to raise taxes on the non-rich.  They voted 256-171 to end the Obama tax cuts on the non-rich but keep the Bush tax cuts. They voted 170-255 against extending the existing tax cuts on the non-rich.

This seems like it should be a winning issue for the Democrats to stand firm on, but they will no doubt capitulate as usual.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

From what I've read it seems like Romney's arguing that the study doesn't fully account for the increased revenues that will come from private sector growth.

I don't know enough about it to really argue, but I see what he means.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

From what I've read it seems like Romney's arguing that the study doesn't fully account for the increased revenues that will come from private sector growth.

I don't know enough about it to really argue, but I see what he means.

Romney is full of sh**t, as usual.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

How so?

[Vosem]

A flat tax would be the fair way to go, I say.

[pepper11]

If you're not a millionaire and you're voting for this guy, you're an idiot.

Ahhhhh...

the pervasive liberal I am smart, you are dumb argument. Very refreshing.

[Lloyd Bentsen's Ghost]

From what I've read it seems like Romney's arguing that the study doesn't fully account for the increased revenues that will come from private sector growth.

I don't know enough about it to really argue, but I see what he means.

Tax cuts don't increase revenues. Wrong side of the Laffer Curve.

[Secretary Polnut]

From what I've read it seems like Romney's arguing that the study doesn't fully account for the increased revenues that will come from private sector growth.

I don't know enough about it to really argue, but I see what he means.

Tax cuts don't increase revenues. Wrong side of the Laffer Curve.

Well the whole economic basis of this is an ideological talking point that the Bush tax cuts did nothing to support. In really difficult times, the rich save their money, they don't risk investing it in a sluggish economic environment.

[cavalcade]

...he's literally proposing that we raise taxes on 95% of America so that the rich get to keep more of their money.

That is what is likely to happen if you "broaden the base and lower rates" as they call it, yes.

From what I've read it seems like Romney's arguing that the study doesn't fully account for the increased revenues that will come from private sector growth.

I don't know enough about it to really argue, but I see what he means.

Tax cuts don't increase revenues. Wrong side of the Laffer Curve.

Yep, the peak is in Sweden territory or something like that.  Like 70%.

[Governor Maxwell]

A flat tax would be the fair way to go, I say.

[Secretary Polnut]

A flat tax would be the fair way to go, I say.

a) what rate?
b) what exemptions would apply?
c) what programs would have to die to make up the shortfall in Government revenues?

[© Tweed the Younger]

A flat tax would be the fair way to go, I say.

a) what rate?
b) what exemptions would apply?
c) what programs would have to die to make up the shortfall in Government revenues?

why even engage?  they're genocidal maniacs

[Supersonic]

A flat tax would be the fair way to go, I say.

A flat tax is completely unfair.

[stegosaurus]

A flat tax would be the fair way to go, I say.

The rate would have to be ~22% for the flat tax to be revenue neutral. Consider that while considering that our current tax rates do not provide enough revenue to meet our obligations. The flat tax would be a catalyst for economic fallout, and an effective tax increase on virtually everyone; especially if the reform were to scrap most deductions, as the Heritage Foundation has suggested.

[Likely Voter]

The Tax Policy Institute actually did even run the model with generous growth assumptions and still concluded that the only way to remain revenue neutral Romney's plan would have to raise taxes on the middle to pay for the 1%. But of course Romney would never actually propose such a thing, what he is proposing is something that just doesn't add up.

Romney is saying he will keep Bush tax cuts, add new tax cuts, increase defense spending, and maintain revenue. He has also talked about balancing the budget.   When asked for what he would cut in terms of spending and tax exemptions he refuses to say so its impossible to score but basic common sense says that it just wont add up.

The question is, can he go through an entire campaign by saying "I'll give you the details after I'm elected".

Remember it was Romney who was pretty hard on Cain back when he and 999 were riding high. It was Romney pressing him in the debates for details, like how it created a new sales tax on top of current sales taxes. And, ironically, it was Romney's campaign that touted this same Tax Policy Institute when it pointed out the problems in Perry's tax plan.

[opebo]

A flat tax would be the fair way to go, I say.

No, flat incomes would be the 'fair' way to go.

[ajb]

The Tax Policy Institute actually did even run the model with generous growth assumptions and still concluded that the only way to remain revenue neutral Romney's plan would have to raise taxes on the middle to pay for the 1%. But of course Romney would never actually propose such a thing, what he is proposing is something that just doesn't add up.

Romney is saying he will keep Bush tax cuts, add new tax cuts, increase defense spending, and maintain revenue. He has also talked about balancing the budget.   When asked for what he would cut in terms of spending and tax exemptions he refuses to say so its impossible to score but basic common sense says that it just wont add up.

The question is, can he go through an entire campaign by saying "I'll give you the details after I'm elected".

Remember it was Romney who was pretty hard on Cain back when he and 999 were riding high. It was Romney pressing him in the debates for details, like how it created a new sales tax on top of current sales taxes. And, ironically, it was Romney's campaign that touted this same Tax Policy Institute when it pointed out the problems in Perry's tax plan.

In essence, Romney wants to run for president without being vetted.

[Jacobtm]

A flat tax would be the fair way to go, I say.

[link=http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156857.0]The Overall Tax Burden is already pretty much flat.[/link]

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A flat tax would be the fair way to go, I say.

[link=http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156857.0]The Overall Tax Burden is already pretty much flat.[/link]

Well, Romney paid 14% federal income taxes, and in his schedule A reports 4% state income and sales taxes, so the 18% ha paid is a lower percentage than all but the poorest 20% paid according to that table.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The Tax Policy Institute actually did even run the model with generous growth assumptions and still concluded that the only way to remain revenue neutral Romney's plan would have to raise taxes on the middle to pay for the 1%. But of course Romney would never actually propose such a thing, what he is proposing is something that just doesn't add up.

Romney is saying he will keep Bush tax cuts, add new tax cuts, increase defense spending, and maintain revenue. He has also talked about balancing the budget.   When asked for what he would cut in terms of spending and tax exemptions he refuses to say so its impossible to score but basic common sense says that it just wont add up.

The question is, can he go through an entire campaign by saying "I'll give you the details after I'm elected".

Remember it was Romney who was pretty hard on Cain back when he and 999 were riding high. It was Romney pressing him in the debates for details, like how it created a new sales tax on top of current sales taxes. And, ironically, it was Romney's campaign that touted this same Tax Policy Institute when it pointed out the problems in Perry's tax plan.

In essence, Romney wants to run for president without being vetted.

Heaven forbid a candidate should want that.