So say researchers from the Brookings Institute and the Tax Policy Center.
Romney’s just bad at this whole “trying to win an election” thing. I’m not talking about how he’d be as President, but as a candidate, he’s terrible.
“A left-wing think tank says it, so you know they’re wrong. I have a 56-point plan to get this economy going by getting the government off your back. I’ll cut taxes and remove loopholes. I’ll rein in the social safety net that is destroying free enterprise and repeal job-kill Obamacare. God Bless America.”
Or, to make it even simpler: “nuh-uh”. Trust me, it’ll work.
Romney was a fan of the same think tank when they put out a similar message on Rick Perry’s tax plan. Which is surprising, because Rick Perry had a tax plan?
It was a three part plan. Replace the current code with a 20% flat tax with deductions. Keep the current tax code in case folks want to use that instead (which, huh?). And I forget the third part…
The article seems a bit, um, thin to be making the sorts of predictions they are making there. Basically, this seems like spin to me. They state that Romney hasn’t yet divulged what cuts he plans to make, and basically they take the position that regardless of how the numbers pan out, Romney would go through with this exactly as (vaguely) stated, and thus it would cost the average American $500 (which they seemingly pulled out of thin air).
yawn It’s a campaign promise, full of fluff and stuff and lacking any sort of substance. Not that I think Romney has a chance, but I’d be willing to bet that if Romney DID get elected that this plan never sees the light of day, since it seems the numbers don’t work out. Romney would then use any number of excuses to handwave his failure to act on the plan (my guess, based on the current administration would be that he’s say something along the lines of ‘the Democrats are being mean to me and won’t let me do what I want…so, it’s not MY fault’) and things will just move along.
YMMV, but this seems pretty lame to me, of all the things to ding him on.
I think you’re largely right, XT, but not about the final result. You claim that he’d just let the plan fall away, but I disagree. I think he’d try to enact it but drop the part about making it revenue-neutral. Especially if the GOP takes the Senate and decides to pass it under reconciliation.
Nothing there that people here haven’t been saying all along. You can’t cut lots of taxes on the rich without the money coming from somewhere. Mittens never says what loopholes he will close because those benefiting from the loopholes would get mad at him. So the rich would get their tax cuts, the loophole would not be closed, and the 95% would get screwed as usual.
However even if it wasn’t new it would merit repeating again and again.
I think the Brookings analysis is correct. Loopholes help the rich, but the also help the middle class. The main reason so many people have no income tax liability is because of loopholes that can shield people making pretty solid incomes from income taxes.
I still think tax reform is worthwhile, and Romney could fix his problem simply by increasing the individual standard deduction to somewhere around $25,000. The standard deduction is ridiculously low and always has been. An individual would be hard pressed to live on the standard deduction, yet the government wants to take more of his money?
Of course, even if you increase the standard deduction more people than not will pay more in taxes, but not a significant amount more. Mainly homeowners would pay higher taxes and renters less since they’d get the same tax break instead of the vastly unequal treatment they get today.
Funny how good candidates make bad presidents sometimes though. It is unfortunate that Romney is no the best campaigner because it will be the reason he doesnt win if that happens.
On the tax issue- it is hard to raise taxes on people who do not pay them but I also think Romney and Ryan have been clear on the fact that everybody will have to make sacrifices to fix the fiscal problem.
This is a deviation from politicians promising the world for nothing in return that has led to everybody expecting something for nothing. The dont raise my taxes ever crowd fall into this category as well.
The American people need to take a look it the mirror and realize it is not just misguided policies of politicians across the spectrum that are responsible for our woes. WE are also responsible for believing them- electing them and supporting them after they have lied or not fulfilled those ridiculous promises. We need to start taking responsibility for decades of mistakes we have made
Under Ryan’s budget plan, Romney would pay 1% in taxes. Romney’s tax plan would provide large tax cuts for the wealthy while increasing taxes on the middle class.
So this is an interesting definition of * everybody * – the sacrifices don’t seem to be being made by the folks proposing the policies.
What sacrifices are Romney and Ryan calling on millionaires to make?
They must tirelessly call upon the muses to grant them their job creating vigour.
If the OP’s statement is true, then the Dems should all vote for him. Aren’t you all saying the problem is we need to raise taxes to pay for even more spending?
Um, please show me a Democrat who says that we need to raise taxes to offset spending when that spending is in the form of tax cuts to the wealthy.
Funny, I thought that Democrats were calling for spending cuts AND tax increases in order to balance the books, since this is the only possible way out of the fiscal mess. As opposed to Republicans, who are adamantly opposed to any form of tax increase, (and have signed pledges to that effect) but instead propose to balance the budget by cutting unspecified programs, or “waste” or “loopholes” or “red tape” or some such airey-fairy bullshit.
When was the last time this country cut spending? Dem Ideas of cutting the deficit are to raise taxes MORE than raised spending. In fact remember how George “No new taxes!” Bush raised taxes based on the Dem promise to cut spending? Care to look up what happened that year to spending?
The Dems increased it
Obama’s second year in office.
Not a spending cut, since the stimulus was a one-time expense. Yet spending did not drop by $800 billion, as it should have.
Profit!
The third part is always profit.
So? The government spent a certain amount during one year, and during the next year it spent less. That sure sounds like a “spending cut” to me.
Now, if you want to argue that it’s not a significant or sustainable cut, go ahead. I’ll probably even agree with you. But you’re trying to dismiss this with a handwave when you don’t have to.
On the other hand, what would you consider to be a cut? Does the exact dollar amount have to go down? How about adjusted for inflation or population size? Since we’re on the subject of debt and deficit, if we can just get government spending to increase at a lower rate than the overall economy (meaning spending as a percentage of GDP goes down) then, all other things being equal, we’ll be making headway. According to one chart I found, “cuts” by that definition happen pretty regularly, although they are not often sustained for multiple years.