Which particular group do you mean, the one criticizing the plan or the one promoting it?
I disagree completely. The TPC report is simply a data point, one of many, that people incorporate into their view of the world. It will become true, false, or irrelevant as events unfold. The policies that Romney (if he is elected) and other Republicans pursue will have the force of law if enacted. I know which of those things I think matters more.
If you want to engage in pedantry over the precise wording of a headline about a policy analysis, go right ahead. The rest of us have decisions to make.
Thank you. That is exactly what I was looking for - an actual cite rather than random claims that it’s all bullshit and has been debunked.
If those deductions, as well as all other tax expenditures for those making >$200k (health insurance, mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc…) are all eliminated then I will concede that Romney can in fact cut the rates, remain revenue neutral, and not raise taxes on the lower 95% of income earners.
Romney should probably update his plan to spell out that he is eliminating all of these deductions for high-income earners, I’m sure they will appreciate the clarity.
ETA: I love the “previously listed” line - it was listed by me after I did the work of finding the cite myself.
Well, why shouldn’t he propose such things if he knows a) it makes him look more moderate and sensible and b) there isn’t a chance in hell that such proposals would pass?
Profit.
For those interested here is the AEI piece that the WSJ opinion piece used. Here is an update based on the TPC FAQ.
Thanks for that, yorick, the second article in particular is very helpful. It highlights how extremely difficult it would be to get a revenue neutral plan that didn’t have regressive tendencies (you’d have to explicitly eliminate all deductions only for high-income taxpayers), but also how it was misleading for TPC to flatly assert that it couldn’t be done at all.
Actually Rand Rover posted the link to the article yesterday. If all you needed was a cite, then you wasted your time - it had already been provided.
Regards,
Shodan
I see that now - I’m not sure how I missed it after reading the thread about 5 times. I actually had to do a search on all of his posts to find it.
After those cites I’ll amend my own personal headline to: “Romney’s tax plan will most likely raise taxes on some filers making less than $200k while cutting them for those making more”.
It seems unlikely to the point of impossible that his detailed plan will call for the elimination of all deductions for anybody making over $200k (which would be required for my statement to be false). But it does seem to be potentially possible (depending on your assumptions regarding interaction and margins of error). If he does propose such a plan, I’ll be very impressed.
You seem to have clicked on the wrong thread. In this thread, we are talking about the TPC report and how it’s been debunked. You can talk about other issues in other threads.
Wrong, I posted the two WSJ articles in this thread several hours before you did.
And he admitted his error several hours before this post.
Tell me more about this debunking…
Apparently it is mathematically possible for Romney to grossly favour the rich.
So, this thread sunk like a stone after I posted the debunking, with very little commentary on it (most of which was non-responsive dismissal based on source). Par for the course around here, I guess.
Well, gosh, Rand, who can stand up to your massive intellectual firepower?! You bestride the boards like a colossus! Tyrannorover Rand!
Ahh, of course- this fantastical mystery debunking that I keep asking about (and never get an answer for). I’ve actually gone through the thread again, and I couldn’t find it. Would you care to provide a post number?
Post 67.
I just came into this thread and looked at these cites.
Both are of course op-ed pieces from the Wall Street Journal. For some strange reason I can’t find any bylines so I don’t know who wrote them.
You can consider them debunking only if you take that as a premise and believe everything they say.
Yet the first article can rebut the accusation that the plan would raise taxes only by adding an assumption that Romney would close tax loopholes that he has not yet said he would. Since closing those are the equivalent of tax increases it is flatly impossible to believe that any Republican-controlled Congress would approve these changes. Therefore, the tax increases would stand. You can make any number work if you disregard reality.
The second article reiterates the standard spiel about how tax cuts increase revenues, although it can’t actually give any specifics about how Romney’s plan will do so because the plan contains none.
This is of course a problem for critics of the plan as well. They must make assumptions about what changes will actually be made. Antis will make negative assumptions; pros will make positive assumptions.
The huge overwhelming takeaway is that nobody can ever use (unsigned?) partisan opinion as a declaration of fact. There is no debunking here that anyone who is not already a True Believer in the Wall Street Journal’s ideological bubble could ever accept. The best you can do is play partisan analysis against partisan analysis to get the extremes on both sides of the future, a bit like how hurricane forecasts highlight a wide swathe to include all the models. Reality usually winds up in the middle.
The difference is that partisan economic analyses use imaginary numbers, imaginary policies, and imaginary histories rather than science. I haven’t read through the Tax Policy Center’s full work to see how imaginary their work was, though I assume it uses liberal assumptions. But the WSJ’s op-eds are valueless.
What are you on about? I posted my comment on the “debunking” right here:
Do you disagree with part of that?
OK, let’s have more commentary. Do you think that a Romney tax reform plan would be both (a) revenue-neutral and (b) cause tax increases primarily for those in the top 5% of income earners?
Hell, let’s get more to the point - do you think that tax reform should be revenue neutral and lead to increased taxation for the top 5%? Because most economic conservatives believe that the rich currently pay too much and that the poor (especially the bottom third or so) pay too little. Do you disagree with this?