# 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:** 5
**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, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/81 "2012-08-23T03:31:17Z")
Well, how is a cross-the-board reduction of revenue of 20% supposed to help, then? I thought the underlying assumption was that this would lead to more jobs and an overall increase in the tax base. I assume further, but am prepared to be corrected, that Romney plans significant government spending cuts. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/82 "2012-08-23T09:33:05Z")
> [@Saint Cad](#): > > It’s easy to laugh at those people but look how devistated our economy is because of the housing bubble popping and not are the reactionaries really THAT unreasonable? Preparing for financial collapse isn’t unreasonable. It can be honourable and arguably sane, in fact. Engineering financial collapse by dismantling vital government institutions that are a key component of every industrialised country on the other hand is completely devoid of reason. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/83 "2012-08-23T10:50:16Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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. Other than if it doesn’t create jobs, there is no justification for a tax cut that increases the deficit. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/84 "2012-08-23T13:32:14Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > 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. IOW, the title of the OP is a confidently asserted fiction. The authors of the “analysis” are claiming that it is impossible to make up the $86B difference in any other way except to cause 40 of the 45% or so of Americans who do not now pay federal income tax, to start paying it. I do not see that they have shown that - they are simply assuming it. It is endlessly fascinating to see how misrepresentations on one side are treated so differently from misrepresentations on the other. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/85 "2012-08-23T14:05:28Z")
**Shodan** , do you agree that this statement is accurate: Romney’s tax plan would cut taxes for the top 5% of Americans and increase them for some portion of the remaining 95%? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/86 "2012-08-23T14:58:21Z")
Not until you demonstrate its accuracy. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/87 "2012-08-23T15:04:55Z")
So what _is_ Romney’s tax plan, and how does it avoid a drop in overall revenue? Or is the drop the point, in which case how does it address the deficit/debt? Or is the deficit/debt not important to Romney, so what _is?_ ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/88 "2012-08-23T15:10:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Not until you demonstrate its accuracy. It’s in the paper, **Shodan**. The cuts are well defined, and amount to a certain value of tax decrease for everybody (except the poorest current taxpayers, who’s rates actually go up even without any base broadening because of the expiration of the payroll tax cut). Then you look at the tax expenditures Romney wants to cut to make his plan balance. If you take all of the plausible expenditures for those making over $200k you are still left with a $86 billion shortfall. Do you disagree with this part? If so, why? Next: Even after removing all plausible expenditures from the \>$200k group, they still have a net tax cut. Do you agree with this? If not, why not? Finally, if there is $86 billion still to save, and the top 5% has a net tax cut, and the plan must be neutral, clearly there is _some portion_ of the remaining 95% who must see a net tax increase. There is no magic or tricks here. It’s all laid out quite clearly in the paper. If you have a specific point of contention beyond the implication in the OP that _all_ of the 95% would see a tax hike, which I have since agreed to and modified in my claim, please spell it out for us. ---
**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, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/89 "2012-08-23T15:20:15Z")
Jas, why are tourepeating debunked claims as ifthey were the truth? ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/90 "2012-08-23T15:23:24Z")
Which claim is that, **Rand**? ---
**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, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/91 "2012-08-23T15:27:52Z")
What part of what he is saying is bunk? Serious question, because I’m not sure how an upper-class tax cut has ever avoided one or more of the following occurring: - an increase in the deficit/a decrease in the surplus - a cut in government spending - someone outside the upper-class paying more in taxes Possibly these are only short-term effects, made up for an increase in the size of the tax base in the longer run, though as far as I can tell, it takes more than a tax cut to accomplish this. ---
**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, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/92 "2012-08-23T15:40:26Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Then you look at the tax expenditures Romney wants to cut to make his plan balance. If you take all of the plausible expenditures for those making over $200k you are still left with a $86 billion shortfall. If you read the WSJ pieces you’ll see that this part is bunk. ---
**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, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/93 "2012-08-23T15:46:35Z")
The WSJ opinion pieces, you mean? ---
**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, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/94 "2012-08-23T15:51:09Z")
Yes. Not sure why you think that matters --do you think that the bunk nature of the Tax Policy Center report is a newsworthy item that should be in the new part of the paper? ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/95 "2012-08-23T16:11:19Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > If you read the WSJ pieces you’ll see that this part is bunk. Could you please provide a cite for this rather than make me troll the WSJ for it? Or is it pay-walled? Cause I’m assuming it’s not this one: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443324404577595440116857330.html?mod=googlenews\_wsj](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443324404577595440116857330.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/96 "2012-08-23T16:15:41Z")
OK, I think I found it: [Review & Outlook: Mathematically Possible - WSJ](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443404004577581570978359112.html) Do you support ending the two expenditures it cites as ones Romney could potentially close to make the math work - the exclusion of interest on tax-exempt municipal bonds, and the exclusion of interest on life insurance savings? Because those seem to contradict current GOP thinking that investment income should not be taxed. ---
**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, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/97 "2012-08-23T16:37:05Z")
Whether I or the Republican party supports ending or reducing those two tax expenditures doesn’t matter one bit. What matters is the TPC claim fails. ---
**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, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/98 "2012-08-23T16:56:16Z")
I dunno, the allegedly debunking cite says “Nowhere do Mitt Romney or his advisers say that these deductions can’t be touched.” If I was an American, I’d be more comfortable with a quote from Romney or his advisers saying the deductions _could_ be touched. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/99 "2012-08-23T16:58:23Z")
The TPC claim is that Romney and the GOP would never end those expenditures. That their current policy position forbids it. I agree with that assessment - their policy explicitly calls for not taxing investment income. You might as well hypothesize that they’ll institute a carbon tax to make their plan revenue neutral even though they have explicitly opposed such a tax. I wasn’t asking for your personal opinion so much as whether you disagree with the TPC analysis - do you think that those two expenditures would be on the table? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086/100 "2012-08-23T17:21:18Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Then you look at the tax expenditures Romney wants to cut to make his plan balance. If you take all of the plausible expenditures for those making over $200k you are still left with a $86 billion shortfall. Do you disagree with this part? If so, why? Because you have not demonstrated the basis for your use of the term “plausible”. > [@](#): > > Next: Even after removing all plausible expenditures from the \>$200k group, they still have a net tax cut. Do you agree with this? If not, why not? Because you have not demonstrated the basis for your use of the term “plausible”. > [@](#): > > It’s all laid out quite clearly in the paper. No, as a matter of fact it is not. The authors of the “analysis” are purporting that it is unavoidable that Romney’s plan will raise taxes on 95% of the American populace. I believe we have established that this is a flat-out lie. The authors are further purporting that it is unavoidable that Romney’s plan will suffer an $86 billion shortfall. As the WSJ article demonstrates, this is also a flat-out lie. The authors are also purporting that two deductions in particular are not “plausible”. We know this also to be a flat-out lie. From the WSJ cite previously listed - > [@](#): > > Senior economic adviser Glenn Hubbard says these deductions are definitely “on the table.” So we know that the assertion that they are implausible is shown to be false. What I would like you to demonstrate is why I should believe that the opinions of a known group of liars as to the outcome of the Romney tax plan, are to be taken seriously. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-95-of-americans/630086.md?page=6)