# Romney's tax plan would raise taxes on 95% of Americans **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 1, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086 "2012-08-01T18:48:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/61 "2012-08-22T20:08:56Z")
Yeah, skin in the game, everyone pays for their own prancing horse… ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/62 "2012-08-22T20:20:04Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Yeah, skin in the game, everyone pays for their own prancing horse… You can have my prancing horse tax credit when you pry it from my cold, dead thighs. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/63 "2012-08-22T20:31:32Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > cold, dead thighs. Sounds like my wedding night. Thanks, you been great, I’ll be here all week! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/64 "2012-08-22T20:55:42Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think the phrase “broadening the base” means “more people paying taxes”- so his plan means some people who don’t pay income tax will start. Yes, I understand that. Does “some” mean “40% of all Americans”? Is the claim that Romney’s tax plan will increase the percentage of Americans paying income tax from 54% or so to 95%? It would seem that that has to be the claim, if 95% of Americans are going to have their taxes raised. Currently, about 45% or so of Americans do not pay any federal income tax. If Romney’s plan will change that from 45% not paying income tax to 5% not paying income tax, then the title of the OP will be accurate. If it doesn’t, then it isn’t. So, is the title accurate? If so, can you please point me to where Romney has mentioned this? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/65 "2012-08-22T21:19:01Z")
Clearly, the Obama Administrations refusal to release details of Romney’s plan is the problem here. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/66 "2012-08-22T21:41:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Is the claim that Romney’s tax plan will increase the percentage of Americans paying income tax from 54% or so to 95%? It would seem that that has to be the claim, if 95% of Americans are going to have their taxes raised. Did you read the paper? It’s here, so you can if you want: [http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf) (PDF, obviously). They did not examine exactly which part of the 95% will see a hike because Romney will not tell us how he intends to pull of this feat of arithmetic. But the fact is that if you put in his cuts, and cut all expenditures for those making over $200k, you still have an $86 billion revenue loss that has to be paid for by the other 95%. So, perhaps all of that will be paid by the middle- and upper-middle-classes, and the bottom third will still be in the same situation as before. Or perhaps he’ll eliminate the EITC and the number of non-payers will drop dramatically. Or any other possibilities. Until Romney names which deductions he wants to attack it’s impossible to know. Looking at the chart, it appears that he could take all of the $86 billion out of the hides of those making between $100-200k. Again, assuming he eliminated all deductions for those making over $200k. No matter how it’s done, what we do know is that the top 5% will get a cut and the rest will pay for it in some form. I guess we can change the title to “Romney’s tax plan would cut taxes for the top 5% and raise it on some portion of the rest of us”. Does that satisfy you? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/67 "2012-08-23T00:16:27Z")
Debunked: [Review & Outlook: Mathematically Possible - WSJ](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443404004577581570978359112.html) > **[Review & Outlook: The Romney Hood Fairy Tale](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443792604577574910276629448)** > > The Wall Street Journal exposes the false, invented analysis behind Obama's tax claims. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/68 "2012-08-23T01:02:38Z")
Did you notice at the top of the page, that word, “opinion”? Are you aware that the context of an opinion page is decidedly distinct? The reporting of the _WSJ_ is largely reliable and seldom disagrees with the reports from any of the other major news sources. Its editorial staff, however, is wholly partisan. And seriously, here…they cite the American Enterprise Institute and your reaction is “Well, there you have it, rock solid non-partisan fact!”? So a distinctly right wing editorial opines, supported by a think tank just to the left of Calvin Coolidge, and you say “debunked”? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/69 "2012-08-23T01:12:09Z")
Even opinion pieces make valid arguments. But I don’t think WSJ succeeded in debunking it, they just disagree with whether the numbers add up. The op-ed makes a reasonable case that the Tax Policy Center is wrong, but their argument is less detailed and hardly constitutes a debunking. Actually, it’s the typical tactic of finding one flaw in a study and then using that to cast doubt on the rest of it. Which I consider a fallacy, not sure what SMDB thinks. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/70 "2012-08-23T01:18:17Z")
The claim is that it is impossible for Romney to execute his plan without raising taxes on 95% of Americans. The two WSJ pieces show how exactly that is, in fact, possible. So, debunked. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/71 "2012-08-23T01:19:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Even opinion pieces make valid arguments. But I don’t think WSJ succeeded in debunking it, they just disagree with whether the numbers add up. Wrong. They show how Romney can do his plan without increasing taxes on 95% of Americans, which is what the original article claimed was impossible. > [@](#): > > The op-ed makes a reasonable case that the Tax Policy Center is wrong, but their argument is less detailed and hardly constitutes a debunking. Actually, it’s the typical tactic of finding one flaw in a study and then using that to cast doubt on the rest of it. Which I consider a fallacy, not sure what SMDB thinks. One flaw is all that is necessary if that flaw is fatal to the argument, which is the case here. And, in fact, they found more than one flaw. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/72 "2012-08-23T01:21:32Z")
One flaw _does_ cast doubt, it could hardly be otherwise. And that is fair enough, even honest men’s analysis bend towards their opinions, like gravity bends light. And if Obama could present a detailed budget, without a single flaw or the least hint of a fudged number, we should cancel the election and start towards a unanimous approval of the President for Life Amendment. Also, round up whatever lepers remain in our modern world, and bus them to Washington for healing. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/73 "2012-08-23T01:26:46Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Wrong. They show how Romney can do his plan without increasing taxes on 95% of Americans, which is what the original article claimed was impossible. > One flaw is all that is necessary if that flaw is fatal to the argument, which is the case here. And, in fact, they found more than one flaw. I’m not a tax policy expert, but those two deductions don’t sound big enough to me to reduce the top rate down to 20%. Erskine-Bowles figured if you get rid of nearly all deductions you could reduce the top rate to 18%. Romney isn’t leaving himself much maneuvering room. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/74 "2012-08-23T01:28:11Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > One flaw _does_ cast doubt, it could hardly be otherwise. And that is fair enough, even honest men’s analysis bend towards their opinions, like gravity bends light. A study as detailed as the Tax Policy Center’s was bound to have a flaw here and there. The ones cited don’t seem large enough to debunk it. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/75 "2012-08-23T01:32:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > A study as detailed as the Tax Policy Center’s was bound to have a flaw here and there. The ones cited don’t seem large enough to debunk it. It’s pretty easy, I’m surprised you are having so much trouble with it. The Tax Policy Center said “we are going to assume Romney won’t do X.” Romney’s never said a damn thing about doing or not doing X. If Romney does do X, then he can execute his tax plan without raising taxes on 95% of Americans. So, bingo bango, the Tax Policy Center’s claim that it is impossible for Romney to do his plan without raising taxes on 95% of Americans is shown for the trash it is. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/76 "2012-08-23T01:38:20Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’m not a tax policy expert, but those two deductions don’t sound big enough to me to **reduce the top rate down to 20%**. Erskine-Bowles figured if you get rid of nearly all deductions you could reduce the top rate to 18%. Romney isn’t leaving himself much maneuvering room. You are severely confused. Romney’s plan is not to reduce the top rate down to 20%. It is to reduce all rates by 20%. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/77 "2012-08-23T02:52:29Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You are severely confused. Romney’s plan is not to reduce the top rate down to 20%. It is to reduce all rates by 20%. In percent or percentage points? I mean, dropping someone’s tax burden from 20% to 16% is a 20% reduction, though it’s only 4 percentage points. In any case, is there still the tenuous underlying assumption that this will create jobs? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/78 "2012-08-23T02:57:03Z")
Tax cuts don’t create jobs, but economists tend to agree that a simpler tax system is pro growth. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/79 "2012-08-23T03:14:14Z")
That may be true, but it doesn’t answer my question. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/80 "2012-08-23T03:25:41Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > In percent or percentage points? I mean, dropping someone’s tax burden from 20% to 16% is a 20% reduction, though it’s only 4 percentage points. > In any case, is there still the tenuous underlying assumption that this will create jobs? Romney’s plan reduces each marginal rate by 20%. So,a 20% rate becomes a 16% rate. And whether the plan will (or is assumed to) create jobs doesn’t really bear on the discussion in this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086.md?page=5)