And The Band Plays On

[Park]

I mean at the very least you have to admit this is just bad politics.

 

Swiss bank account

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican U.S. presidential challenger Mitt Romney's proposal to slash individual income taxes by 20 percent across-the-board would primarily boost the income of the wealthiest taxpayers, according to a nonpartisan analysis released on Wednesday.

The report by the centrist Tax Policy Center found that Romney's tax cuts would boost after-tax income by an average of 4.1 percent for those earning more than $1 million a year, while reducing by an average of 1.2 percent the after-tax income of individuals earning less than $200,000.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-tax-plan-helps-rich-most-tax-group-130529619.html

[3rdnlng]

I mean at the very least you have to admit this is just bad politics.

 

Swiss bank account

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-tax-plan-helps-rich-most-tax-group-130529619.html

 

Do you know what is wrong with the article you linked to? Suggestion, reread it and see where and what they draw their conclusions from.

[WorldTraveller]

I mean at the very least you have to admit this is just bad politics.

 

Swiss bank account

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-tax-plan-helps-rich-most-tax-group-130529619.html

 

The whole conclusion of the report is absurd, reason being is they derive their findings based on a "revenue neutral" conclusion, so in order for it to be revenue neutral from their perspective is to come through higher taxes from those making under $250K, even though there is nothing in Mitt's plan that suggests higher taxes for those folks.

 

From the article:

 

Romney has not specified how he would compensate for the sweeping tax cuts. But making up for the lost revenue, Brookings analysts said, “necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures.”

 

“Such a reduction by itself would be unprecedented,” Brookings reported, “and would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits, ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low- and middle-income families and children like the [earned income tax credit] and child tax credit.”

 

-

 

Mitts tax plan:

 

Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates

Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains

Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains

Eliminate the Death Tax

Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

 

Romney's plan to raise more revenues are through unspecified closing of certain loopholes. So this report assumes that the only way they can come to a revenue neutral outcome is through elimination of mortgage deductions for those making under 250k. Which has never been proposed, however he did specifically mention:

 

"Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said he would eliminate or limit for high-earners the mortgage interest deduction for second homes, and likely would do the same for the state income tax deduction and state property tax deduction."

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432704577346611860756628.html

 

So again, they basically assume that he is going to make the tax cuts 100% revenue neutral and that he will cut the mortgage deductions of those making under $250K, even though he has never mentioned that he would do this and specifically has stated that it would be for upper income earners.

[IDBillzFan]

Again with this report? Jesus, now they're re-trying stuff that didnt' work the last time?

 

Park...look into who the "independent economist" is from this report. If you can't see that, you're a bigger fool than even I thought possible.

[3rdnlng]

The whole conclusion of the report is absurd, reason being is they derive their findings based on a "revenue neutral" conclusion, so in order for it to be revenue neutral from their perspective is to come through higher taxes from those making under $250K, even though there is nothing in Mitt's plan that suggests higher taxes for those folks.

 

From the article:

 

Romney has not specified how he would compensate for the sweeping tax cuts. But making up for the lost revenue, Brookings analysts said, “necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures.”

 

“Such a reduction by itself would be unprecedented,” Brookings reported, “and would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits, ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low- and middle-income families and children like the [earned income tax credit] and child tax credit.”

 

-

 

Mitts tax plan:

 

Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates

Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains

Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains

Eliminate the Death Tax

Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

 

Romney's plan to raise more revenues are through unspecified closing of certain loopholes. So this report assumes that the only way they can come to a revenue neutral outcome is through elimination of mortgage deductions for those making under 250k. Which has never been proposed, however he did specifically mention:

 

"Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said he would eliminate or limit for high-earners the mortgage interest deduction for second homes, and likely would do the same for the state income tax deduction and state property tax deduction."

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432704577346611860756628.html

 

So again, they basically assume that he is going to make the tax cuts 100% revenue neutral and that he will cut the mortgage deductions of those making under $250K, even though he has never mentioned that he would do this and specifically has stated that it would be for upper income earners.

 

 

Thanks for doing his homework for him and ruining my "cat toy" moment!

[Philly McButterpants]

I mean at the very least you have to admit this is just bad politics.

 

Swiss bank account

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-tax-plan-helps-rich-most-tax-group-130529619.html

 

Funny how "non-partisan" now means former Obama appointees. How non-partisan can you get??

[Park]

The whole conclusion of the report is absurd, reason being is they derive their findings based on a "revenue neutral" conclusion, so in order for it to be revenue neutral from their perspective is to come through higher taxes from those making under $250K, even though there is nothing in Mitt's plan that suggests higher taxes for those folks.

 

From the article:

 

Romney has not specified how he would compensate for the sweeping tax cuts. But making up for the lost revenue, Brookings analysts said, “necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures.”

 

“Such a reduction by itself would be unprecedented,” Brookings reported, “and would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits, ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low- and middle-income families and children like the [earned income tax credit] and child tax credit.”

 

-

 

Mitts tax plan:

 

Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates

Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains

Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains

Eliminate the Death Tax

Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

 

Romney's plan to raise more revenues are through unspecified closing of certain loopholes. So this report assumes that the only way they can come to a revenue neutral outcome is through elimination of mortgage deductions for those making under 250k. Which has never been proposed, however he did specifically mention:

 

"Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said he would eliminate or limit for high-earners the mortgage interest deduction for second homes, and likely would do the same for the state income tax deduction and state property tax deduction."

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432704577346611860756628.html

 

So again, they basically assume that he is going to make the tax cuts 100% revenue neutral and that he will cut the mortgage deductions of those making under $250K, even though he has never mentioned that he would do this and specifically has stated that it would be for upper income earners.

That's some plan Mitt has got there. Why do you suppose there's so much unspecified stuff in it?

[WorldTraveller]

That's some plan Mitt has got there. Why do you suppose there's so much unspecified stuff in it?

Not sure, but what I can tell you for sure is that the assumptions made by the BROOKINGS INSTITUTE are unfounded, and Romney has never suggested anything of the like. That IS what we do know for SURE.

[IDBillzFan]

Not sure, but what I can tell you for sure is that the assumptions made by the BROOKINGS INSTITUTE are unfounded, and Romney has never suggested anything of the like. That IS what we do know for SURE.

On the other hand, at least Park is back in tandem with Axelrod, who Tweeted this morning: "New Study: Romney tax plan would result in cuts for rich, higher burden for others. http://wapo.st/QnKSrq "

 

Just like clockwork, Park. Keep up the good work.

[WorldTraveller]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-cites-independent-non-partisan-study-written-former-staffer_649193.html

 

 

 

President Obama cited an "independent, non-partisan study" in Mansfield, Ohio earlier today:

 

"And you do not have to take my word for it," said Obama. "Just today, an independent, non-partisan organization ran all the numbers on Governor Romney’s plan. This wasn’t my staff. This wasn’t something we did. Independent group, ran the numbers."

 

The president is right, up to a point: The study was not written by an Obama staffer, but by a former Obama staffer--and a close ally.

 

The study, titled “On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform,” was written by Samuel Brown, William Gale, and Adam Looney.

 

As Looney's biography page at the Brookings Institution states, "Looney was the senior economist for public finance and tax policy with the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and has been an economist at the Federal Reserve Board."

 

As for Gale, another coauthor, he's in favor of tax hikes and another stimulus. "As the debate over the so-called fiscal cliff and its potential effects continues in policy and political circles, it just may be the case that the U.S. economy will be set on a better path, says Brookings Institution senior fellow William Gale. … And for good measure, tie in a temporary fiscal stimulus, he says. Enacting a payroll tax cut or government spending on infrastructure will have a stronger impact on the economy than the Bush tax cuts, Gale argues," according to the Washington Post.

 

Likewise, Gale's a close ally of the White House and took part in Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" in 2009, not that he's partisan or dependent, according to President Obama's statement today.

 

While there, at the summit, Gale again pushed for tax hikes. “William Gale said that there needs to be an “exit strategy” for the recession, especially since we got into this by spending and taking on too much debt. He went on to urge policymakers to consider what happens when the government cuts back and, further, what types of taxes are needed in order to have a smooth landing,” according to the White House.

 

So far, "independent, non-partisan" economist William G. Gale has visited the White House 12 times.

 

"This wasn’t my staff," Obama insists.

Edited August 1, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[Doc]

That's some plan Mitt has got there. Why do you suppose there's so much unspecified stuff in it?

You're going to have to elect him to see what stuff is in his plan.

 

Hey, it worked for Obamacare.

[Rob's House]

That's some plan Mitt has got there. Why do you suppose there's so much unspecified stuff in it?

It's far more detailed in that blip than Kerry's plan to have a plan ever was. And we're still over 3 months out. Come to think of it, it's more detailed than the Ring-a-Ding Kid's was 4 years ago...or now for that matter. But hey, any excuse is a good excuse to take a swipe at Romney.