Romney Tax Plan: "Mathematically Impossible"

[Rohirrim]

Analysis of the flim-flam man's boondoggle for the rich:

Mitt Romney's campaign says I'm full of it. I said Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible: he can't simultaneously keep his pledges to cut tax rates 20 percent and repeal the estate tax and alternative minimum tax; broaden the tax base enough to avoid growing the deficit; and not raise taxes on the middle class. They say they have six independent studies -- six! -- that "have confirmed the soundness of the Governor’s tax plan," and so I should stop whining. Let's take a tour of those studies and see how they measure up.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...-tax-plan.html

Can you say "Voodoo economics?" I knew you could.

[Rohirrim]

The bottom line?

The Tax Policy Center paper that sparked this discussion found that Romney's plan couldn't work because his tax rate cuts would provide $86 billion more in tax relief to people making over $200,000 than Romney could recoup by eliminating tax expenditures for that group. That means his plan is necessarily a tax cut for the rich, so if Romney keeps his promise not to grow the deficit, he'll have to raise taxes on the middle class.

[Meck77]

We're are currently operating under the impossible. Infinite printing of money (quantitative easing).

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by Meck77

We're are currently operating under the impossible. Infinite printing of money (quantitative easing).

Nice deflection, MR. GREY POUPON who once told me you people have too much debt and a house and too many kids. "Bastard children are this country;s biggest problem".

Yes folks this a-hole is full of chit and himself, one in the same.

[Kid A]

Here's a similar, slighty shorter version of Barro's takedown:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ssible/263541/

Romney's tax plan is a three-legged stool that doesn't stand. Here's how it works -- or doesn't. Romney wants to 1) cut tax rates across the board by 20 percent, 2) cut tax expenditures to pay for these tax cuts, and 3) maintain progressivity. The problem, as the Tax Policy Center pointed out, is there aren't enough tax expenditures for the rich to pay for all the tax cuts for the rich. Romney's plan only works if he cuts out the tax cuts for the rich, raises taxes on the middle class, or explodes the deficit. In other words, Romney can pick two, and only two, of his tax goals -- what Matt Yglesias of Slate calls the "Romney Trilemma".

Does he care more about his tax rate cuts, about not hiking taxes on the middle class, or not increasing the deficit? His adviser Kevin Hassett suggested they would back off the high-end tax rate cuts if it would increase the deficit, but Romney quickly denied that.

The answer to that bolded question should be clear to anyone who has watched Republican governance—they will gladly increase the deficit.

The excuse will likely be that Congress wouldn't agree on enough loopholes to close, so they'll pass the cuts and ostensibly hope to make the math work later. When, of course, revenues will be growing anyway because trickle-down/Laffer curve/voodoo/magic!

[razorwire77]

Probably why when it came up during the debate Paul Ryan looked like a car-salesmen who didn't want to talk about purchase price or financing terms, but rather how low the payments would be.

[barryr]

Do any politician's numbers really work out in the end?

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by barryr

Do any politician's numbers really work out in the end?

Maybe not. But one could at least hope that they're not facially absurd at the beginning.

[razorwire77]

Originally Posted by manchambo

Maybe not. But one could at least hope that they're not facially absurd at the beginning.

Absolutely. It's false-equivalency at its worst. No politician wants to get caught up in detailed explanation of numbers, but that's entirely different than a financial plan that promises record military spending, tax cuts for everybody, and that the deficit will magically disappear because of said tax cuts. It's absurd.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Analysis of the flim-flam man's boondoggle for the rich:

Mitt Romney's campaign says I'm full of it. I said Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible: he can't simultaneously keep his pledges to cut tax rates 20 percent and repeal the estate tax and alternative minimum tax; broaden the tax base enough to avoid growing the deficit; and not raise taxes on the middle class. They say they have six independent studies -- six! -- that "have confirmed the soundness of the Governor’s tax plan," and so I should stop whining. Let's take a tour of those studies and see how they measure up.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...-tax-plan.html

Can you say "Voodoo economics?" I knew you could.

Neither the author, nor the OP, understand basic economics.

Economic activity, and jobs are created when tax rates decrease. Lowering tax rates has proven to envigorate economic activity, and thus increase the amount of tax revenue collected....something which the OP didn't even consider.

The CBO would definitely consider the amount of new tax revenue generated by reduced tax rates, and would include it while scoring any new legislation.

[pricejj]

The primary tenet of the Romney/Ryan tax plan is to grow the middle-class through reduced tax rates, while closing the loopholes on the wealthy. Romney's simplified tax reform would create millions of jobs pushing people out of poverty into the middle-class.


Obama has shrunk the middle class over the past 4 years. Household median income has plummeted in the Obama Presidency.

[Blart]

Originally Posted by pricejj

The primary tenet of the Romney/Ryan tax plan is to grow the middle-class through reduced tax rates, while closing the loopholes on the wealthy.

Oh cool!

Can you name one of those loopholes? Just one, so we can see how much increased revenue there will be - I just want to make sure, so, you know, there isn't a bigger deficit under Romney's plan than Obama's.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by pricejj

The primary tenet of the Romney/Ryan tax plan is to grow the middle-class through reduced tax rates, while closing the loopholes on the wealthy. Romney's simplified tax reform would create millions of jobs pushing people out of poverty into the middle-class.

This is simply the old supply side, voodoo economics flim flam in new clothes. It's the same old ****. I call it The Wimpy Argument: I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

And when those uber-rich take all those tax cuts and hide them in the Cayman Islands, and no growth happens, then what?

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

And when those uber-rich take all those tax cuts and hide them in the Cayman Islands, and no growth happens, then what?

What part of "closing loopholes on the wealthy" don't you understand?


Again, all of this was included in the original bi-partisan Bowles-Simpson debt commission, which the President was supposed to follow. Unfortunately, he ignored it, accumulating the largest spending deficits in the history of the U.S.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by pricejj

What part of "closing loopholes on the wealthy" don't you understand?


Again, all of this was included in the original bi-partisan Bowles-Simpson debt commission, which the President was supposed to follow. Unfortunately, he ignored it, accumulating the largest spending deficits in the history of the U.S.

What part of "Which loopholes?" doesn't Romney understand?

The largest chunk of that deficit comes from Republicans driving the legislation that turned our stock market into a casino. Good thing the Republicans weren't able to get their wishes and dump a bunch of our Social Security into that corrupt market. There'd be a whole lot of elderly Americans left out in the cold, like all those Enron pensioners.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Obama has shrunk the middle class over the past 4 years. Household median income has plummeted in the Obama Presidency.

Since when has the GOP given a **** about anyone but the 1%?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by pricejj

The primary tenet of the Romney/Ryan tax plan is to grow the middle-class through reduced tax rates, while closing the loopholes on the wealthy. Romney's simplified tax reform would create millions of jobs pushing people out of poverty into the middle-class.


Obama has shrunk the middle class over the past 4 years. Household median income has plummeted in the Obama Presidency.

We are living through the worst recession since 1929.

Your guys caused it.

Your guys want to continue the policies that caused it.

Why can't you guys get this through your heads? Why is that so difficult to simply look at the results and say, "Doesn't work. Let's move on."

The righties live in their own little fantasy world.

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by pricejj

The primary tenet of the Romney/Ryan tax plan is to grow the middle-class through reduced tax rates, while closing the loopholes on the wealthy. Romney's simplified tax reform would create millions of jobs pushing people out of poverty into the middle-class.


Obama has shrunk the middle class over the past 4 years. Household median income has plummeted in the Obama Presidency.

You never met a lie you didn't love.

All anyone has to do is look at what policies Ryan has voted and what policies Romney wants in place. Who do they favor and when Romney has a choice between making an extra buck or saving some jobs....we all know what he chooses.

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN LIES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111

[Cito Pelon]

Well, there's no doubt both sides of the aisle have to work together to solve problems instead of the constant "You suck, no you suck, no you suck, no you suck" cluster ****.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Cito Pelon

Well, there's no doubt both sides of the aisle have to work together to solve problems instead of the constant "You suck, no you suck, no you suck, no you suck" cluster ****.

Impossible when one side (read: the GOP) is a gang of thugs and economic terrorists who believe compromise is weakness.

Clinton compromised with the right more than any other Democratic president in history, and the rethugs rewarded him with impeachment over a penny-ante sex scandal.

These right-wing sh*t stains made The Great Clinton Zipper Hunt the nation's #1 priority - even when a solid majority of American didn't support it.

[razorwire77]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Neither the author, nor the OP, understand basic economics.

Economic activity, and jobs are created when tax rates decrease. Lowering tax rates has proven to envigorate economic activity, and thus increase the amount of tax revenue collected....something which the OP didn't even consider.

The CBO would definitely consider the amount of new tax revenue generated by reduced tax rates, and would include it while scoring any new legislation.

Yep, those ignoramuses at the Tax Policy Center have no idea what they're talking about. You can decrease revenue, increase military spending at an exponential rate and throw in a free puppy and everything will magically work out. It's the same old failed supply-side economics model. But every good scam needs a sucker.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Neither the author, nor the OP, understand basic economics.

But you do.

Here, compare your curriculum vitae to his:

Josh Barro is an expert on tax policy, entitlements and public employee compensation. He is a contributor to Forbes.com, where he writes the popular blog “The Barrometer.” From 2010-2012 he was the Walter B. Wriston Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He is the author of several previous Civic Reports and issue briefs focusing on state and local fiscal issues. He is also the co-author of the Empire Center for New York State Policy’s Blueprint for a Better Budget.

Barro is a frequent television, radio, and print commentator on fiscal and economic issues. He is a regular contributor to National Review Online and has also written for publications including the New York Post, the New York Daily News, the Washington Examiner, National Review, and City Journal. Prior to joining the Manhattan Institute, Barro served as a staff economist at the Tax Foundation and worked as a commercial real estate finance analyst for Wells Fargo Bank. Barro holds an A.B. from Harvard College.

[Arkie]

2000 was a record year for revenue. 2007 was 2nd. All the other top 10 years led up to 2000 or 2007. Lack of revenue didn't create this deficit problem. We are really just arguing over who has to pay more for the record spending.

[Meck77]

Not a single counter to "infinite quantitative easing" eh? So I guess you admit it's a destructive train wreck WE ARE ON NOW. carry on...

Arkie..It's pointless. It really is.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by Meck77

Not a single counter to "infinite quantitative easing" eh? So I guess you admit it's a destructive train wreck WE ARE ON NOW. carry on...

Arkie..It's pointless. It really is.

People don't realize that QE3 is infinite. It's written in the language of the new policy unlike in the first two rounds of QE. Some are calling it QE4-ever.