Mitt Romney’s plan to raise your taxes and cut his

Last week, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center released the results of a study into the major components of Mitt Romney’s tax plan, which promises voters a 20 percent across-the-board reduction in income tax rates while continuing to produce existing levels of revenue.

Here’s what the TPC found:

“Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower- income taxpayers.”

More specifically, after-tax, take-home income for those Americans making less than $200,000 would fall by an average of 1.2 percent under the Romney plan, while after-tax income for those Americans in Romney’s tax bracket would increase by 4.1 percent.”

Put into graph form, this is how it would look:

Source: Tax Policy Center

Source: Tax Policy Center

The Romney campaign has tried to rebut the findings of the Tax Policy Center, arguing that the Romney plan can’t be assessed accurately because the former Massachusetts governor has refused to release its details. That is simply not true. While Romney has indeed chosen to hide details of his plan, he has made the plan’s basic conceptual framework very clear. He intends to cut tax rates across the board, and to replace that lost revenue by eliminating or reducing major tax breaks.

So let’s look once again at the 20 biggest tax expenditures on the books, as compiled by the Congressional Research Service:

deductions

As you can tell, most of those deductions and expenditures — the mortgage deduction, the health insurance deduction — benefit the middle class more than they do the wealthy, which means the middle class would be hurt worse by their elimination or reduction. Compounding the problem, Romney has made it clear that the tax expenditures that benefit the wealthy most, such as a lower tax rate on capital gains than on earned income, would be preserved under his plan because he believes they encourage savings and investment.

In short, your tax expenditures are bad and must be removed, while his are good and must be retained.

Given those parameters, all of which Romney has stated explicitly, it is mathematically certain that taxes would increase for lower- and middle-income Americans while they would fall for Romney’s counterparts.

As TPC concludes:

“… even when we assume that tax breaks –- like the charitable deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the exclusion for health insurance -– are completely eliminated for higher-income households first, and only then reduced as necessary for other households to achieve overall revenue-neutrality -– the net effect of the plan would be a tax cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income households.”

In fact, to some Romney supporters, the additional tax breaks for the wealthy contained in his plan are a feature to be celebrated, not a bug to be denied. As William McBride, a conservative economist at the Tax Foundation, puts it:

“In summary, TPC has correctly identified the Romney plan as a tax cut, at least in static terms, that accrues mainly to high-income earners. But TPC fails to acknowledge any of the benefits of Romney’s plan, most pertinently that lower rates combined with a broader tax base should lead to significant economic growth. The benefits of such growth will benefit some more than others, but arguably the currently unemployed will receive the greatest benefit in the form of a job.”

In other words, the Romney is simply a repeat of the Bush plan — trickle-down, Laffer-curve economics of the sort that conservatives have been peddling since the late ’70s. And while the rich have indeed become richer over that time frame, the promised benefits of that strategy have yet to appear.

But hey, maybe next time, right?

– Jay Bookman

962 comments Add your comment

Adam

August 6th, 2012
2:39 pm

Awww here we go!

Adam

August 6th, 2012
2:40 pm

stands for decibels (SfBA)

August 6th, 2012
2:41 pm

your tax expenditures are bad and must be removed, while his are good and must be retained.

Always a safe bet whenever you hear a conservative blathering on about the need for “tax reform.”

getalife

August 6th, 2012
2:41 pm

Are you cons going to vote to raise your taxes?

Seriously?

stands for decibels (SfBA)

August 6th, 2012
2:42 pm

But hey, maybe next time, right?

how about never again? Does never again work for us? I think it does.

Welcome to the Occupation

August 6th, 2012
2:43 pm

Extremely well put, Bookman! ;)

HDB

August 6th, 2012
2:44 pm

Historically, it’s shown that the Democrats are better stewards of the nation’s economy that the GOP has been; R-Money’s idea are evidence that the GOP has maintained its status as the party “of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich”!

No wonder my taxes keep going up every time a Republican gets into the White House!!

TaxPayer

August 6th, 2012
2:45 pm

As I recall, the Georgia Republicans tried to pull off a similar revenue neutral regressive tax on the locals but got caught by a few diligent Democrats before they could slip it through.

Tommy Maddox

August 6th, 2012
2:49 pm

Boy I’m glad Obama has a handle on it.

Simple Truths

August 6th, 2012
2:50 pm

Back from vacation and back to blogging about crap by your second post… Alas, Jay, your first post was good.

Peadawg

August 6th, 2012
2:50 pm

Welcome back, Jay. Hope you had a good vacation.

I’m sure Kyle loved the extra hits his blog got.

TaxPayer

August 6th, 2012
2:51 pm

The benefits of such growth will benefit some more than others, but arguably the currently unemployed will receive the greatest benefit in the form of a job.”

Yep. Just like what happened with those Bush tax cuts. :roll:

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

August 6th, 2012
2:51 pm

WEALTH ENVY!

Just thought I’d get that out of the way early on.

Peadawg

August 6th, 2012
2:52 pm

“Back from vacation and back to blogging about crap by your second post… Alas, Jay, your first post was good.”

This is his 3rd post, actually. Looks like he gave the people who have absolutely no life on the weekends something to do.

TaxPayer

August 6th, 2012
2:53 pm

Are you cons going to vote to raise your taxes?

Oh Noes! Haven’t you heard! All cons make OVER $200k/year and have most of their earnings coming from capital gains, the goodest kind of earnings there is in the whole danged universe.

Peadawg

August 6th, 2012
2:54 pm

Hell, the mortgage interest deduction is one of the main, if not THE main, reason we live in a house. Take that away and back to an apartment we go.

Peter

August 6th, 2012
2:56 pm

Yup…….. the Republican base doesn’t care even about themselves or their personal finances……as long as that Black man is gone !

And yes they are not prejudice…… just because they are white ?

Welcome to the Occupation

August 6th, 2012
2:56 pm

In fact, to some Romney supporters, the additional tax breaks for the wealthy contained in his plan are a feature to be celebrated, not a bug to be denied

Of course it is, Jay. It’s called a class war for a reason.

gadem

August 6th, 2012
2:57 pm

trickle down economics or as they should be called…Golden Shower economics

Logical Dude

August 6th, 2012
2:57 pm

“The Romney campaign has tried to rebut the findings of the Tax Policy Center, arguing that the Romney plan can’t be assessed accurately because the former Massachusetts governor has refused to release its details. ”

Wait a minute. . . So he doesn’t REALLY have a plan, because he hasn’t released the details. I don’t think he has details, because he’s, well. . . a politician running for votes. He’s just spouting things right and left for votes, and leaving the details on the floor.

Of course, when people take what he says as truth, then we have the fun we’ll see today. anyone else need popcorn for today’s discussion?

Doggone/GA

August 6th, 2012
3:00 pm

“Are you cons going to vote to raise your taxes?”

Seroiusly? I’d say yes. Because they’ll hear him say he cares about the middle class…and won’t LOOK to see what he would DO.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

August 6th, 2012
3:00 pm

Looks like he gave the people who have absolutely no life on the weekends something to do.

Let’s see here…this weekend I went to the range; traveled back up here to this small hamlet in the N.C. Mtns.; pick two buckets of peas, shelled them, blanched and froze them; picked one bucket of beans and strung them; and still posted here this weekend.

TaxPayer

August 6th, 2012
3:04 pm

And we must not forget the mostest goodest part of all about Miraculous Mitt’s Job Creator Initiator Plan of all Plans–it’s gonna create twelve MILLION new jobs during just Mitt’s first four years in office. Just imagine what he could do with eight years. :lol:

Patrick

August 6th, 2012
3:04 pm

“Only the little people pay taxes”–Leona Helmsley

“I’ve paid a lot of taxes”–Mitt Romney

DBCOOPER

August 6th, 2012
3:05 pm

If you believe this BS. I feel sorry for you.

The LIBS want us to hate rich successful people. I have always wanted to be rich. Now that LIBS hate rich people, makes me even more motivated.

jms

August 6th, 2012
3:05 pm

Republicans have no shame

August 6th, 2012
3:07 pm

The working middle/poor cannot catch a break under Romney’s plan. I read earlier that the Social Security Administration is encouraging women to wait until the age of 70 to draw their pensions because the system is upside down. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote to see the country continue to spiral backwards!!

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

August 6th, 2012
3:08 pm

The LIBS want us to hate rich successful people.

Not intended to be a factual statement.

Erwin's cat

August 6th, 2012
3:08 pm

How can it be a tax break for Romeny…remeber he’s paid no taxes for 10yrs according to Harry

Pass the Cheesy Grits Please

August 6th, 2012
3:08 pm

Well shouldn’t we just give all our money to the rich?

After all they are the really smart ones and us ordinary people aren’t to be trusted with money and means.

When the rich get all the money you just watch. Everybody will have a job …..

Bernie

August 6th, 2012
3:08 pm

A comment about Harry Reid. The democratic Leader of the Senate is a MORMON.
Only another Mormon would be privy to such information about MITT! As it would be the same for one church member to have information on another. If Sen.Reid is the LIAR that the republicans are all screaming that he is. Just as the President had to produce his Birth certificate.

Mitt should show America his papers and let the chips fall where they MAY!

If he does, the Republicans will be exposed for supporting America’s first openly LYING and dishonest candidate prior to the peoples vote.

We The People should demand this review in short order!

DBCOOPER

August 6th, 2012
3:08 pm

The Prez borrowes 40 cents of every dollar and advertises on Mexican radio for Food Stamps. His so-called budget is 1 1/2 trillion dollars more than revenue. And all this lame columnist can write about is Romney wanting to raise your taxes.

Look over here in my LIB right hand. While the country is falling further in crisis in my left.

Good job Bookman!

Jeffrey

August 6th, 2012
3:09 pm

I’m mitt Romney. What do you want to hear? Just don’t ask me about my taxes, religion, tenure as governor or my private career.

Pass the Cheesy Grits Please

August 6th, 2012
3:09 pm

I mean look at all those jobs that have trickled down over the years.

Find a rich man today and give him your money !!!!

He will make sure you have a job !!!!

skipper

August 6th, 2012
3:10 pm

I’m conservative, but the best years I had were under Clinton………………..

Stevie Ray

August 6th, 2012
3:11 pm

JAY,

Do you really think we can work our way out of our historic debt/spending problems without some contribution by the masses? What is your President Trillions gonna do with the $80 billion or so a year that he will raise from top 3%?

Our biggest national security exposure is our deficit spending and pitiful balance sheet. Gee, let’s just print more money so the Chinese, Japanese et al will only accept gold as repayment of the debt they bought when the call is made…

Why should anyone piss off more money on our corrupt government without assignment to trust like vehicle that protects the money from finding it’s way into more defense spending (needless), more entitlements/enablers, more catering to special interests…

Do you trust DC with more of your money? Will that reduce deficit spending? If so, let’s go to the video tape..

Paul

August 6th, 2012
3:11 pm

Romney’s a calculating, date-driven guy. To say he does not grasp the broad implications of one of his proposals when details are applied is not rational. Therefore, Romney knows what his policies will do to the middle class. The data demonstrate they will bear the costs. The fantasy hopes intangible benefits will offset the costs.

I’ll bet on data as opposed to fantasy any day of the week.

“the Romney is simply a repeat of the Bush plan — trickle-down, Laffer-curve economics of the sort that conservatives have been peddling since the late ’70s. ”

The data are there. But somehow, Republicans hold to the belief that because the title of the plan (Romney cut, Bush cut, trickle-down, Laffer) is changed, somehow the data do not apply.

And the posts telling us why they don’t apply will be here any minute….

DBCOOPER

August 6th, 2012
3:12 pm

I got to get back to work. That poor person that hired me may get mad.

curious

August 6th, 2012
3:12 pm

Reminds me of the white “underclass” back in the 50’s. They went right along with the white “upperclass” even though it was counter to their financial good.

Their reasoning was “the blacks were even lower”.

Both groups were played for suckers.

Erwin's cat

August 6th, 2012
3:12 pm

Bernie – A comment about Harry Reid. The democratic Leader of the Senate is a MORMON.
Only another Mormon would be privy to such information about MITT

Really that’s what Mormons do..talk about how much they pay in taxes amongst themselves…really?

Stevie Ray

August 6th, 2012
3:13 pm

DBCOOPER,

You are spot on….all this guy wants to do is give more free stuff away…like we can trust they won’t piss away anything else we give them…

Anyone but Obama

August 6th, 2012
3:14 pm

Yea, because only evil people make capital gains! Never mind that is how small businessmen make their money and create most of the jobs in this country. Tax the rich is a popular sentiment – right up until the time none of us have jobs or unemployment stays over 8% for years. Obama, Bookman, and other liberals just don’t seem to understand that taxes ‘on the rich’ cost jobs. I’ve never been employed by a poor person.

larry

August 6th, 2012
3:14 pm

Like a bad football play , the Repubs keep running this one out there, no matter how much yardage its lost.

Mid Ga Retiree

August 6th, 2012
3:14 pm

It would be worth it to pay higher taxes if it would get rid of our current president.

Peter

August 6th, 2012
3:14 pm

Let’s face it folks… unless we spend less on the Military………. we will never ever cut our deficit.

Stevie Ray

August 6th, 2012
3:14 pm

ERWIN,

Why doesn’t GOP point out the millions Reid has made on real estate investments simply by acting of info gleaned for sitting on committees?

Anything to avoid the relevant issues….

Paul

August 6th, 2012
3:15 pm

Bernie

“A comment about Harry Reid. The democratic Leader of the Senate is a MORMON.
Only another Mormon would be privy to such information about MITT!”

Seriously?

All Mormons know how much in taxes other Mormons paid?

Do you have any idea how silly that sounds?

“Mitt should show America his papers and let the chips fall where they MAY! ”

That’s the same argument Rep Issa and Republicans use against Pres Obama regarding Fast and Furious.

Paul

August 6th, 2012
3:16 pm

DBCOOPER

“The Prez borrowes 40 cents of every dollar ”

You may want to reread the constitution to see which branch has the appropriating authority -

Peter

August 6th, 2012
3:16 pm

The Rich want the middle class destroyed…and then all can be puppets to a few…….Romney is the current chosen leader.

Stevie Ray

August 6th, 2012
3:16 pm

Peter,

I couldn’t agree more…I’d say we cut 25% from military and at least 15% from enabling entitlements…this will only be accomplished by getting the private money out of DC…not good odds…Also, cut 10% from every other budget item..

Jay

August 6th, 2012
3:17 pm

“Do you really think we can work our way out of our historic debt/spending problems without some contribution by the masses? “

No, I do not, Stevie Ray. Neither does Obama. He has made clear that he recognizes that entitlement and other spending cuts will have to accompany tax hikes. He recognizes that the problem is so daunting that it has to be addressed from both the revenue and spending sides.

Romney and the Republicans reject that notion entirely.

independent thinker

August 6th, 2012
3:19 pm

Every time Mitt and his rich buds take a leak they are keeping that trickle down theory going.

Peter

August 6th, 2012
3:19 pm

But Stevie Ray ……. how do we protect corporate America around the world and their out sourcing ?

Adam

August 6th, 2012
3:19 pm

DBCOOPER: His so-called budget is 1 1/2 trillion dollars more than revenue.

So I take it you’re in favor of a budget where revenue is MORE than spending?

Please, tell me ALL ABOUT how possible that is if you JUST cut spending….. :roll:

Stevie Ray

August 6th, 2012
3:19 pm

PAUL,

However President Trillions certainly pushed for OBAMACARE which by any measure, will cost us trillions over time…..He also has veto power doesn’t he. He simply is borrow and spend model…he needs to learn that we can’t throw money at all our problems without long term disasterous implications.

Jay

August 6th, 2012
3:20 pm

So far, I have seen no attempt to explain how my analysis or that of the TPC is wrong.

I have seen cries of anguish that such an analysis has been published, but that is a far cry from an actual attempt to refute it.

Bueller?

Adam

August 6th, 2012
3:20 pm

Stevie Ray: However President Trillions certainly pushed for OBAMACARE which by any measure, will cost us trillions over time

Ah yes, but it is still a net deficit reducer. Three guesses why you didn’t mention that ;)

paulo977

August 6th, 2012
3:20 pm

curious

Their reasoning was “the blacks were even lower”.

Both groups were played for suckers.
_____________________________
Very little has changed ,hasn’t it?

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

August 6th, 2012
3:23 pm

Obama, Bookman, and other liberals just don’t seem to understand that taxes ‘on the rich’ cost jobs.

What you don’t understand is that during the 50s and 60s tax rates were much higher and the middle class was much stronger.

I’ve never been employed by a poor person.

I have, but neither of our anecdotal evidence means squat.

Real Scootter

August 6th, 2012
3:23 pm

Well,Jay has been kind enough to show us Romney’s tax plan.I think it would be nice if he showed us Obama’s tax plan so that we could compare “apples to apples”.
But I’m not going to hold my breath.

Adam

August 6th, 2012
3:23 pm

Jay: I’ll try.

The analysis is wrong because it takes Romney’s word for it being revenue neutral. Romney and Republicans clearly have no intention of a revenue neutral plan. If Romney wants to cut taxes across the board, it will be done in such a way that cuts revenue. This probably goes along with the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves in economic growth (touched on by one of the quotes you gave).

BUT, if you take Romney at ALL of his word (foolish as that may be) their analysis given what things he has said about it are true. It would have been more obvious that his intention was to not keep some part of his word if they had been completely unable to make the numbers work.

Stevie Ray

August 6th, 2012
3:23 pm

Peter,

Can you tell me how many jobs Romney off shored? I can’t seem to get an answer. But SEC filings tell the true story about those most prevalent off-shorers..APPLE,and most of the high tech hardware makers, GE, manufactuers of all types…how much more are you willing to pay for an Iphone given the material cost increase you will enjoy if these jobs are brought back to US at our cost of labor???

larry

August 6th, 2012
3:24 pm

Well, we know that just austerity cuts alone dont work. Ask PM Cameron in UK.

Woodstock Mike

August 6th, 2012
3:24 pm

It’s getting crazy how dumb Democrats are becoming…

On every campaign stop Obama is preaching that “hard working” Americans get up everyday and go to work and don’t have anything to show for it!! So… We need to raise taxes on people making 250K and higher and this will solve the problems.

Wait, how exactly will the “hard working” American benefit from giving the US government a little more money from rich people? Do Democrats think when we start taxing people making 250K at a higher rate this is going to magically give the “hard working” American a bigger paycheck or more money in their retirement accounts?

Obama is really making Democrats look stupid these days. He brings up taxing the rich because there is nothing else to talk about. Here’s a stat for you, minorities under President Obama have made less money and have a higher unemployment rate than under any US president in history. You don’t hear the media talking about that too much though??

TM

August 6th, 2012
3:24 pm

And exactly what is Obama’s plan other than tax those over 250K. I know he say we have to cut but what specifically? I don’t see any specifics as to what he plans to cut. Don’t complain that one guy doesnt have a plan when yours doesnt either.

gadem

August 6th, 2012
3:25 pm

exactly Jay. Republicans think that lowering revenue and cutting spending will cut the deficit. Even in fantasy land, that does not work…

Adam

August 6th, 2012
3:25 pm

Obama, Bookman, and other liberals just don’t seem to understand that taxes ‘on the rich’ cost jobs.

Prove that taxes on the rich cost jobs please.

Your claim. Your burden of proof.

Paul

August 6th, 2012
3:25 pm

Stevie Ray

“However President Trillions certainly pushed for OBAMACARE which by any measure, will cost us trillions over time”

Cite? (you may be surprised when you read the actual analyses).

Which appropriations bills do you suggest he veto? Military? Agriculture? Highways?

That Black Guy

August 6th, 2012
3:26 pm

Bernie

August 6th, 2012
3:08 pm
A comment about Harry Reid. The democratic Leader of the Senate is a MORMON.
Only another Mormon would be privy to such information about MITT! – Which section of *your* colon did you pull that from?

As it would be the same for one church member to have information on another. – What church do you belong to where the other members have intimate knowledge of your finances? I would suggest you stop attending that church.

Mitt should show America his papers and let the chips fall where they MAY!

first openly LYING and dishonest candidate prior to the peoples vote. – Herman Cain, John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, Barak Obama, Ted Kennedy and other ALL “openly lied” while they were candidates.

If there is nothing in his tax records, would it change who you plan to vote for?

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

August 6th, 2012
3:26 pm

…how much more are you willing to pay for an Iphone given the material cost increase you will enjoy if these jobs are brought back to US at our cost of labor?

I am unwilling to buy an iphone at any cost.

David

August 6th, 2012
3:26 pm

If everybody pays their fair share, shouldn’t everyone pay 20%, 30%, or whatever Jay decides. No, I don’t think that’s what the Libs have in mind when they put forth this talking point. Libs and their ideas are implemented by taking the money from the evil moneymakers and redistributing it. And I guarantee that you will never hear from them what is fair for everyone to pay, because it will never be enough!

Adam

August 6th, 2012
3:27 pm

Real Scooter: Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/06/the-massive-policy-gap-between-obama-and-romney/

Compare that to Obama’s tax plan, which you can read on pages 37 through 40 of his 2013 budget proposal (though not, it should be said, on his campaign Web site, which is even less detailed than Romney’s). In these pages, Obama tells you exactly how he would like to raise taxes on the rich. He proposes allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for income over $250,000, capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28 percent, taxing carried interest as ordinary income and more. The total tax increase, compared to current policy, is $1.5 trillion.
Whether you think it’s a good idea or a bad idea to raise taxes on the rich, Obama has told you exactly what he wants to do. Conversely, whether you think it’s a good idea or a bad idea to cut marginal tax rates by broadening the base, Romney hasn’t actually told you what he wants to do.

Lord Help Us

August 6th, 2012
3:27 pm

‘I have seen no attempt to explain how my analysis or that of the TPC is wrong.’

The main problem, from what I have seen, is that the TPC analysis fails to include, ‘the Romney BOOM.’

Seriously, I have heard this said with a straight face…

Adam

August 6th, 2012
3:28 pm

David: If everybody pays their fair share, shouldn’t everyone pay 20%, 30%, or whatever Jay decides. No, I don’t think that’s what the Libs have in mind when they put forth this talking point.

A fair share for a poor person is less of a percentage than a fair share for a rich person.

Stevie Ray

August 6th, 2012
3:29 pm

ADAM,

Obamacare will in no way shape or form be deficit neutral…I want to recall the CBO has weighed in on this (for whatever good their analysis may be). Who is going to pay for all the free stuff and handouts (will increase with medical inflation)? I can tell you it will be us as taxpayers and those of us who will pay much higher rates to offset insurer losses on the state pool business…this will turn into the next Medicare….70 trillion in debt without offsetting assets….imagine when the baby boomers really peak and drown medicare with participation? Who will pay for that?

He knows not the truth

August 6th, 2012
3:29 pm

Based on Woodstock Mike’s comment below, we can all safely assume he is a huge Democrat

“It’s getting crazy how dumb Democrats are becoming…”

Now continue with your stupid postings

Adam

August 6th, 2012
3:29 pm

Lord Help Us: RIGHT! The idea that if Romney gets elected we’ll have full employment almost immediately….

larry

August 6th, 2012
3:29 pm

Letting you know

August 6th, 2012
3:30 pm

From Politifact

“It necessarily makes some assumptions, and therefore these conclusions are not definite as long as the details of the plan remain unknown. For that reason, people should be cautious in calling this Romney’s plan.”

But, hey, why let the truth get in the way.

Paul

August 6th, 2012
3:30 pm

Jay

“So far, I have seen no attempt to explain how my analysis or that of the TPC is wrong.”

If anyone ever does provide an actual refutation to any analysis contained in the lead-off, I’ll nominate “I believe in miracles” as the kickoff for Friday Nite Music.

” He recognizes that the problem is so daunting that it has to be addressed from both the revenue and spending sides.

Romney and the Republicans reject that notion entirely.”

The first newspaper I picked up in a couple of weeks had an article about the Republican’s Senate primary winner from Texas, Ted Cruz. I blanched and put down the paper. Cruz was on Wallace’s Sunday Show on Fox. He said how he’d compromise with anyone. Wallace pressed him on compromise if a budget deal included any tax increases. Cruz pretty much said that wouldn’t be compromise so he wouldn’t do it.

I do wonder how modern Republican define compromise. I think it pretty much follows the Attila the Hun model -

Stevie Ray

August 6th, 2012
3:31 pm

KAMCHAK,

OK how about an automobile, TV, DVD player, land line phone, computers, the list is endless. For better or worse we are in a global economy which benefits consumers and exploits our uncompetitive labor costs…

Adam

August 6th, 2012
3:31 pm

Stevie Ray: Obamacare is a net deficit REDUCER. Meaning the TAXES that are in it more than make up for the COST.

WHO PAYS is only of concern to YOU, for no reason though. Most of the taxes affect only the higher incomes. I have to wonder why this wasn’t brought up BEFORE the SCOTUS ruled on it.

curious

August 6th, 2012
3:31 pm

Wouldn’t change my vote, but his tax records may be an indicator of his innermost character and that may change some undecideds.

DEM

August 6th, 2012
3:32 pm

So if Romney agreed to cut tax rates even further on the middle class to make up for the 1% or so “increase” attributed to eliminating deductions, you’d support this plan, Jay? Somehow I doubt it.

It would be nice if we could have a debate about tax deductions on the merits — as in, do they do more harm than good, do they wildly distort markets, do they make the tax code unnecessarily complex, are they incubators of graft and political paybacks, etc. But nope, the left insists on dumbing this debate down to “who gets what” and absolutely nothing else. Moreover, amid the president’s calls for all to “pay their fare share” we have the left kvetching about a badly-needed restructuring of tax policy if it costs their political constituency even 1% more than they are currently paying.

East Cobb RINO, Inc. (LLC)

August 6th, 2012
3:32 pm

Touch the mortgage interest deduction would be just plain stupid politically and econmically. Imagine the fragile housing market with a flood of upside-down homeowners walking away (this blogger included) with 1 less reason to keep paying on something you might break even with in 15 years. I have done the math for my own situation and the deduction makes it a break even proposal from owning vs renting. Without the deduction it is a no-brainer to stop paying the mortgage the day that interest is no longer deductable.

Adam

August 6th, 2012
3:33 pm

Letting you know: Here’s analysis by Washington Post, giving an Obama ad that tells you about Romney’s plan a TRUTH (Gepetto Checkmark): http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-tough-new-obama-ad-that—-surprise—-is-accurate/2012/08/02/gJQAuigQSX_blog.html

Adam

August 6th, 2012
3:34 pm

Letting you know: By the way, WaPo is bound and determined to find a lie anywhere they can.

Stevie Ray

August 6th, 2012
3:34 pm

ADAM,

The costs of this debacle will certainly not remotely be deficit reducer or neutral..can you point me to any government program of any magnitude that we didn’t end up with a monster ticket?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-cost-1930-trillion-leave-30-million-uninsured_649066.html

Mike

August 6th, 2012
3:34 pm

I am glad to see all the armchair quarterbacks making recommendations on how to fix the economy. Obama who has never had a real job in his life. What most people don’t want you to know, is that when reagan cut taxes, tax receipts/collections went up. And when George W Bush cut taxes on EVERYONE, tax revenues also went up. So for you people that say “no man should make more than $250k”. Why don’t you come up with the opposite number, no man should pay more than X dollars in tax.

Peter

August 6th, 2012
3:34 pm

Woodstock Mike.. Have you ever read it will take America 10 years to get over the BUSH problems ?

larry

August 6th, 2012
3:35 pm

47 years ago today , the Voting Rights Act was signed into law . And 47 years later, it looks like we need another voting rights act.

DEM

August 6th, 2012
3:35 pm

“Stevie Ray: Obamacare is a net deficit REDUCER. Meaning the TAXES that are in it more than make up for the COST.”

You are living in fantasy land. Obamacare was projected to reduce the deficit only because they gamed CBO scoring by starting taxes NOW and delaying the benefits to LATER. In the long run this cannot and will not continue, and so costs will quickly exceed the new tax revenue. Oh, and a huge chunk of the projected cost saving were attributable to the CLASS act, which has already been scrapped as unworkable.

East Cobb RINO, Inc. (LLC)

August 6th, 2012
3:35 pm

Never confuse a “Romney BOOM” with a “Colbert Bump”.

Letting you know

August 6th, 2012
3:36 pm

Yes, they did Adam. But only if it were Romney’s plan. And that is the truth.

weetamoe

August 6th, 2012
3:36 pm

I think there are a few other non-partisan tax expert tax study tax panel tax committee groups out there that would agree and disagree and all that. You can not possibly believe that the mortgage tax deduction would be the deal breaker in your decision about buying a house. It is not worth that much, which is why you are better off just paying cash or paying off your mortgage as quickly as possible. How about no deductions at all and the same tax rate for everyone. Capital gains are returns on money one has already paid taxes on. My husband and two of my kids have Roths–taxes up front. Should they be punished for delaying gratification, for sacrificing some comforts now in order to enjoy reasonably secure retirements? I suppose if we buy long term care insurance rather than hope to gobble up some of that there medicaid we are being selfish?

Stevie Ray

August 6th, 2012
3:36 pm

ADAM,

I own a small firm but all of our principals make well in excess of $250K…we will all pay for this turd of a bill….I note the estimates are up to $2 trillion with coverage problems for many.

Real Scootter

August 6th, 2012
3:37 pm

Adam

August 6th, 2012
3:27 pm

Thanks Adam,I’ll check it out!

Jay

August 6th, 2012
3:37 pm

“So if Romney agreed to cut tax rates even further on the middle class to make up for the 1% or so “increase” attributed to eliminating deductions, you’d support this plan, Jay? Somehow I doubt it.”

No, Dem, I would not. Personally, I’d be happy with a gradual elimination of all the Bush tax cuts on everybody, across the board, as a critical step toward fiscal sanity. Permanent tax cuts, on the other hand, would be a disaster.

DBCOOPER

August 6th, 2012
3:37 pm

As a senator and the majority leader in the Senate, Reid pulls down a salary of $193,400 per year. According to the latest data from Opensecrets.org, which is from 2010, Reid has assets totalling $10,360,000.” Maybe like Nancy Pelosi, he accidentally participated in a bunch of wildly profitable stock IPOs.

Another pesky rich guy to hate.

Paul

August 6th, 2012
3:39 pm

curious

“Wouldn’t change my vote, but his tax records may be an indicator of his innermost character and that may change some undecideds.”

Does that mean he follows every option to his advantage that the Congress has proposed, the president has signed and the IRS has interpreted? In other words, he follows the law and Democrats want to show how following the law benefits him and not them and so Romney should bear the blame?