Actually…not too sure about that. There seems to be an assumption that if you’re taking a high deduction then you must be making an equivalently high income. But if you’re in a high property tax/high real estate cost state (say, CA or MA or NJ), then even very middle class people are easily going to be hitting that deduction limit. (In other words, more taxes from the blue states that are already funding the red states.) At best, you’re actually doing a stealth tax increase on the wealthy, but it’s unlikely that this is Romney’s plan, seeing as he’s not supporting Obama’s rollback of the Bush tax cuts on those same wealthy.
Even if it is a fair idea, what’s the point? If you pass a tax cut that supposed to be revenue neutral by reducing deductions and loopholes, you’re not doing anything useful. It’s likely that you’re really doing a stealth tax increase on the middle class and hoping no one notices.
A cap that bites the middle class while protecting big-money loopholes (which, as I noted, are considered “buisiness expenses” to which the cap is inapplicable) is part and parcel of the crap. Trying to make this sort of distinction is like picking out a chunk of peanut from an elephant turd.
538 had Romney’s chances tick up just a little today, and Silver seems to think the debates favor challengers. So he’s not dead yet. Not healthy, but not yet dead.
Set it at $50K then. I said I liked the idea, and wasn’t taking a stand on the amount.
Who said anything about a revenue neutral plan? I said the idea of a cap on total deductions was a good idea. Period. I said the rest of Romney’s tax plan was crap. I’m not saying, hey, let’s have a pile of crap because of this one good idea. I’m saying this one idea is good, if we ditch the rest of the crap.
Yeah, and if the AMT ever applied to you (as it did to me one year), you’d quickly understand the appeal of something clearer and simpler.
Taking into account recent history, I would still say it is still out of touch, Kerry was declared the winner by most on all the presidential debates against Bush, and he still lost as he did go to the debates also with polls already against him.
Yes. The reason that Obama supporters would be gloating as you are now if the situation were reversed is that it would be seen as putting away an already behind/defeated opponent. Romney doesn’t have that luxury right now; he still has work to do, unless you think this win totally reverses his fortunes, especially in, say, Ohio and Florida. (Admittedly, the latter isn’t a huge stretch to imagine…)
Romney has reversed the momentum and probably won himself a couple of points in the short run but I predict this debate will have a minimal impact on the final result. As I mentioned on the other thread, this is not a debating contest and the purpose of debates is to develop themes that you can sustain through the campaign. I don’t think Romney did that tonight; if anything I think it is the “secret plans” attack by Obama which has the potential to develop some serious legs.
On thinking about it a bit more, I think Romney had a clear strategy of pivoting to the center and he did it well, sounding authoritative and intelligent. I think this should have been his strategy much earlier but better late than never. The problem is he is still vague about what he will actually do and Obama nailed him on that with probably his best line: about whether Romney was keeping his plans secret because they were too good. This is similar to the Etch-a-Sketch attack but it’s sharper and fresher which is why I think it will have legs. It will also hurt Romney more because his centrist pivot comes late.
Secondly I don’t think Romney really addressed the empathy issue arising from the 47% comments among other things. This may partly be because Obama didn’t attack him on it. Romney showed he is competent but did he persuade skeptical working-class Americans that he cares about them? I think this was accentuated by his hyper-active body language and debating style. There is a line between being authoritative and being obnoxious and I think Romney crossed it occasionally. This may alienate women voters in particular.
So to summarize:
Romney showed he is intelligent and well-prepared.
He didn’t show he cares about the average American.
He left himself open to attacks as being a shifty opportunist who isn’t straight about what he plans to do.
I wouldn’t sneeze at 1 but I don’t think it was Romney’s biggest problem anyway. 2 was his biggest problem and I think 3 nicely complements that weakness. It’s all too possible to believe that the reason that Romney is shifty is because he doesn’t give a hoot for the problems of average Americans.
I know it well. In California, any family with two professional incomes and a large mortgage is going to right at the border of it.
What really irks me about the AMT (as compared to a simple deduction maximum) is that we got a lower tax bill by reducing our deductions. Because the penalty for hitting the AMT was greater than reduced taxes from the deduction. We’ve got one messed up tax code.
as I said before… unless the debates win him PA and Ohio Romney isn’t winning the election. Without one of those two states its almost impossible for him to win this race. Just dont see any debate chaning a 8-9% lead in those two states. Especially when you consider that Romney hasn’t even campaigned in PA in like 3 months.
I think the Romney campaign’s answer is they don’t need PA even if they lose Ohio. But they do need Wisconsin, and Romney’s doing worse there than he is in Ohio, so I don’t see that that helps him. Nate Silver doesn’t even include Wisconsin in his list of competitive states anymore.
Man, that’s more messed up than I realized. I knew it was incomprehensible; I didn’t know there were situations where the incentives ran backwards. Crazy *and *stupid.
Here’s a slightly confusing graphic showing the polling changes for the winning candidate (election winning, not debate winning) before and after the debate cycle, since 1960.
Had no idea Carter was sinking that fast in 1976… if the election were held 2 weeks later, Ford might have won again. Same thing with Kerry in 2004.