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.
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.
Other than if it doesn’t create jobs, there is no justification for a tax cut that increases the deficit.
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
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%?
Not until you demonstrate its accuracy.
Regards,
Shodan
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?
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.
Jas, why are tourepeating debunked claims as ifthey were the truth?
Which claim is that, Rand?
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:
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.
If you read the WSJ pieces you’ll see that this part is bunk.
The WSJ opinion pieces, you mean?
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?
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
OK, I think I found it: Review & Outlook: Mathematically Possible - WSJ
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.
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.
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.
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?
Because you have not demonstrated the basis for your use of the term “plausible”.
Because you have not demonstrated the basis for your use of the term “plausible”.
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 -
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