Bartlett is not an objective source On Saturday, October 20, 2012, MJ wrote:
> > *The Last Word on Romney’s Tax Plan: It Doesn’t Work > *By BRUCE > BARTLETT<http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Authors/B/Bruce-Bartlett.aspx>, > The Fiscal Times > October 19, 2012 > > If asked what policies Mitt Romney would enact that are significantly > different from those Barack Obama would enact in a second term, I expect > that most people will say that Romney will cut taxes, whereas Obama will > not. Therefore, we can say that the election is more about tax policy than > any other issue. > > The first thing to understand is that Romney’s plan would not cut taxes > at > all<http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/10/12/If-Romney-Wins-Will-His-Tax-Plan-Survive.aspx#page1>, > at least in principle. It is a revenue-neutral tax reform. He repeatedly > says that he would raise exactly the same amount of revenue after his plan > is implemented as would be the case without his plan. > > While it is true that Romney says he will cut tax rates by 20 percent, > this is not by any means the same as saying he will cut taxes by 20 > percent. The revenue lost by lowering tax rates would be replaced by > raising taxes by taking away peoples’ tax deductions. Some people will get > a net tax cut, others will likely see a large net tax increase. > > It is impossible to say who will get a tax cut and who will get a tax > increase because Romney won’t say which deductions he will eliminate to pay > for his rate cut. Obviously, he knows that there are many people planning > to vote for him who wouldn’t if they knew their taxes would rise under his > plan. > > To prevent this from happening, he talks in broad generalities and > emphasizes the 20 percent rate cut, hoping that people will think their > taxes will go down by 20 percent when this is clearly not what he is > proposing. > > As a number of analysts have pointed out, there is no way that Romney can > possibly make the numbers in his plan add up is unless he abolishes very > popular deductions such as that for mortgage interest, state and local > taxes, and charitable contributions. Obviously he would lose a massive > number of votes if every homeowner, churchgoer, and resident of a high-tax > state thought this would happen. Therefore, exactly what deductions would > be eliminated has been kept a secret from voters. > > Indeed, there isn’t much support even among Republicans for eliminating > deductions necessary to pay for Romney’s rate reduction. The Republican > Party platform adopted at the same convention where Romney was nominated > says that under no circumstances should the charitable contributions > deduction be touched. And just this week, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a > rising star in the GOP, objected to any tax plan that restricted mortgage > interest or the exclusion for health insurance as well. > > [image: []] > > Said > Rubio<http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/marco-rubio-tax-deductions.php,>, > “Do you really want to hurt charitable giving in a country when you are > saying that you want to rely less on government and more on private > institutions to deal with these issues? And how are you going to raise > taxes on people on their health care premiums when you are saying you want > there to be a system in place where folks can have more control over their > own money?” > > In response, Romney put forward a new tax plan in recent days suggesting > that he might not raise taxes by eliminating specific deductions that are > too popular to touch, but rather by capping all of a taxpayer’s deductions > by some amount. At first he put forward the hypothetical figure of $17,000 > per > taxpayer<http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/10/03/Romney-Floats-a-Cap-on-Tax-Breaks-Is-It-for-Real.aspx#page1>, > but at the presidential debate on Tuesday he raised that number to $25,000. > > In short, a taxpayer would add up all his deductions for charity, mortgage > interest, state and local taxes, medical expenses and whatever else he or > she is entitled to and if the amount is over whatever figure Romney has > decided upon then the amount above that would not be deductible. > > Taxpayers thinking they will get a tax cut from the Romney plan would be > advised to check their tax returns first. According to data released > earlier this > year<http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/02/08/How-Normal-Are-Your-Tax-Deductions.aspx#page1>, > taxpayers who declared between $50,000 and $100,000 of income in 2009, > claimed, on average, $7,269 for medical expenses, $6,247 for taxes, $10,133 > for interest and $2,775 for charitable contributions. That sums to $26,424 > -- well above both figures Romney has put forward. > > To be sure, taxpayers would simultaneously benefit from lower tax rates. > But keep in mind that we are talking about statutory rates, not the > effective rates that people actually pay. Whether a particular taxpayer > will come out ahead or lose from the Romney plan depends on their > particular circumstances. > > On Wednesday, the Tax Policy Center published estimates of the impact of > the Romney plan under both the $17,000 and $25,000 deduction cap > scenarios<http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Limit-Itemized-Deductions.cfm>. > Note, “current law” estimates assume that the Bush tax cuts expire at the > end of this year on schedule, “current policy” assumes that they are > extended. Romney has said that he wants the Bush tax cuts extended > permanently in addition to his proposed rate cut. > > What the TPC found is that almost everybody gets a tax cut under either > proposal because capping deductions at either $17,000 or $25,000 doesn’t > raise nearly as much revenue as is lost by cutting rates 20 percent. The > gross revenue reduction from the Romney plan (including other tax cuts he > has proposed in addition to the 20 percent rate cut) is at least $5 > trillion over 10 > years<http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm>, > whereas capping deductions at $25,000 brings back only $1.3 trillion and > capping deductions at $17,000 would raise only $1.7 > trillion<http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3590> > . > > Indeed, even if every single deduction is completely eliminated for > everyone, it would only cover $2 trillion of the gross cost of the Romney > plan, leaving a net tax cut of $3 trillion. That is to say, the deficit > would be $3 trillion higher under the Romney tax plan. Contrary to his > oft-repeated promise that he would raise the same revenues, he would not -- > or even come close. > > Readers can judge for themselves whether Romney is stating a falsehood > when he says his tax plan is revenue-neutral or whether he is simply > clueless about how his plan actually works. Neither option reflects very > well on a candidate promising to bring honesty and business acumen to > government policy. Clearly, a business deal that would cost $5 million and > only recoup $2 million is one that Romney would have rejected out of hand > in his days at Bain Capital. > > > http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/10/19/The-Last-Word-on-Romneys-Tax-Plan-It-Doesnt-Work.aspx#q72Px7uZXHBbH52c.99 > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
