Everybody wants details about the Romney-Ryan tax plan, almost as much as we want to see Romney’s own secret tax returns. Well, the Romney campaign still refuses to say much about the plan, but today they told Roll Call that a 2006 Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) analysis (PDF) of a “Romney-style tax plan” proves they are not lying about a revenue-neutral proposal to lower marginal income tax rates.
The JCT analyzed a less than 10 percent income tax rate reduction (compared to Romney’s proposed 20 percent), and said it could work assuming that nearly all middle class tax breaks — including those for children, mortgages, and employer contributions for health care — are repealed in their entirety. The study also found that such a plan would result in the “redistribution” of income tax liability from high-income earners to the middle class.
The Tax Policy Center has analyzed the Romney plan. And even when they assumed Romney’s optimistic estimates of economic growth, they determined that the math still doesn’t work.
Benn Steil and Dinah Walker of the Council on Foreign Relations created this handy graph of the ten biggest tax expenditures under our current system:
The red bars indicate items that Romney and Ryan had previously promised not to touch: exclusion of employer contributions for health care, deductions for mortgage interest, reduced tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains, and deductions for charitable giving. These four items constitute a massive 30% of the $1.1 trillion. Therefore the Ryan pledge to cut loopholes and deductions cannot, mathematically, be worth more than $770 billion.
And note some of the other big-ticket “loopholes and deductions” on the list. Social security and other retirement income constitute three of the top ten items, together making up 13% of the total, and the earned income credit, which benefits the poor, represents another 5% of the total. Would Romney and Ryan eliminate those deductions? We’ll speculate here: no. A quick skim of the remainder shows that few of these items constitute “loopholes” in the public’s mind – they are items few imagine could or should be taxed.
Sensitive to the charge that his numbers are not adding up, Romney proposed at Tuesday night’s presidential debate capping deductions at $25,000. This would raise $1.3 trillion in revenues over the next ten years, according to the Tax Policy Center. But that figure is only slightly above what Ryan said they would raise each year. A $1 trillion a year hole remains in their budget math.
In other words, Romney’s plan would add $1 trillion a year to deficit spending unless he can convince Congress to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for more tax cuts for the rich.
UPDATE: Fox Business host Stuart Varney admits that Romney’s tax plan is mathematically impossible.
#1 by brewski on October 19, 2012 - 4:02 pm
You lack of knowledge is astounding.
It is a myth that all of these tax preferences and loopholes benefit the middle class. In fact the opposite is true. In many ways they hurt the middle class.
They also have contributed to the financial crisis and health care crisis.
Only 33% of taxpayers itemize their deductions. That is because most people’s standard deduction is larger than the sum of all of their itemized amounts. So that means that none of these special preferences and loopholes benefit them by one penny. This is true for 67% of all taxpayers.
However, these 33% who do itemize represent 80% of all taxable income. So that doubly shows that those who do itemize are largely only the affluent.
So if all itemization what taken away, and the standard deduction was left the same or increased, then only the rich would lose.
The fact that you don’t get that or don’t know that is stunning.
So for 2012 the stand deduction is $11,900. Since the median household income is $50,054, that means that 24% of their gross income is already given to them for free for deductions whether or not they have the deductions or not. It would be pretty hard for someone making $50,054 to come up with more than $11,900 in deductions. Then even if they do, they are only benefitting from the amount which exceeds their standard deduction.
So if their property taxes are $1,000. Their state income tax is $1,500. Their charitable contributions, $2,500. Mortgage, $5,000. Total is $10,000. So not one penny benefit for itemizing.
The bottom line is you are defending the rich, defending unfairness, defending complexity, defending administrative burden, defending Statism, defending authoritarianism.
#2 by Richard Warnick on October 19, 2012 - 4:16 pm
You think the Earned Income Tax Credit is for the rich? Only three of the top ten tax expenditures require taxpayers to itemize deductions.
#3 by cav on October 19, 2012 - 4:43 pm
Hollowing out the Middle Class.
The Powers That Be learned the dangers of a prosperous middle class in the 1960′s, when American young people not only went to college in ever-increasing numbers, but afterwards were able to support themselves on relatively few hours of work if they so desired – leaving them lots of time to look around, think and act.
How many times have I read memoirs and social histories of that period that mention people working part-time yet being able to afford to share an apartment or a house (depending on the city) with others while being able to devote the bulk of their time to their true interests, whether political, artistic or spiritual?
It’s no coincidence that in the decades since we’ve experienced no period of widespread prosperity that even comes close to that. An educated, engaged middle class with time on its hands spells big big trouble for the aristocracy.
#4 by Richard Warnick on October 19, 2012 - 4:52 pm
I thought the 1 Percent were bent on destroying the middle class just to cut labor costs and reduce taxes, but who knows, they could be doing “right-wing social engineering,” to borrow a term from Newt Gingrich.
#5 by cav on October 19, 2012 - 5:08 pm
Well the plotters need time to plot.
#6 by brewski on October 19, 2012 - 6:28 pm
Who should pay more in income taxes, someone making $50,000 including employer provided health insurance or someone making $50,000 with no employer provided health insurance?
#7 by brewski on October 19, 2012 - 6:30 pm
“An educated, engaged middle class with time on its hands spells big big trouble for the aristocracy.”
I see no evidence of an educated middle class anywhere.
#8 by cav on October 19, 2012 - 6:59 pm
Some might suggest a visit to the mirror may suffice. In your case, I’m not so sure.
Oh, that’s right, you’re of the 1%.
#9 by brewski on October 19, 2012 - 7:47 pm
Huh?
#10 by brewski on October 19, 2012 - 7:58 pm
By they way, your chart is hokum.
The tax-revenue maximizing tax rate on capital gains has been proven to 13.5% by the NBER. So the chart implying that there is revenue to be got by eliminating this “preference” is factually false.
#11 by Richard Warnick on October 19, 2012 - 8:42 pm
Tax capital gains the same as income. Also, bring back the financial transactions tax that was repealed in 1966.
#12 by brewski on October 19, 2012 - 9:45 pm
Taxing capital gains the same as regular income would cause revenues to plummet. This has been proven. Move on to another ignorant claim.
#13 by Richard Warnick on October 20, 2012 - 11:25 am
Proven where, by whom? Jared Bernstein does not agree. And he quotes Warren Buffett:
Actual data back this up.
#14 by brewski on October 20, 2012 - 1:40 pm
NBER, ever heard of them?
Your chart completely does not address the question or what I said.
#15 by cav on October 20, 2012 - 2:57 pm
My my, look at the time! For as early as it is, I’m correcter than usual. I see my big ‘win possibly coming even earlier today – so ahead of schedule am I – maybe even before diner. Though, that wouldn’t really be the first time. But it is nice to ‘win’ early. It really is.
Everyone else, please try to adjust to simply being wrong, out-matched – that you seem to find further struggle even potentially productive is enough to want to haul out my list of perjeratives. Don’t make me do that.
#16 by cav on October 20, 2012 - 3:16 pm
is enough to MAKE ME want to haul out my list of pejoratives.
Shees, apologies to the reader.
#17 by Richard Warnick on October 20, 2012 - 3:23 pm
Not my graph, Jared Bernstein (an actual economist) made it. Here’s his conclusion, since apparently I have to spoon feed you the truth today:
#18 by brewski on October 20, 2012 - 3:29 pm
None of that address the issue at hand in the slightest. You are spoon feeding the wrong question.
#19 by brewski on October 20, 2012 - 3:32 pm
You lie!!!!
Jared Bernstein has no education of any kind in economics. You might as well call me a physician.
Caught again!!! I win!!!
#20 by brewski on October 20, 2012 - 4:11 pm
You quote someone who is not an economist and you lie and call him an economist.
I give you the CBO:
“Four major themes emerge from the data presented in Tables 10 through 16. First, the statistical results confirm earlier research findings that higher marginal tax rates on capital gains lower realizations of capital gains. The results are consistent with the widely held view that any overall revenue pickup from raising capital gains taxes is
considerably less than the static pickup. They also support the general practice of taking account of behavioral responses to capital gains taxes used in the official revenue estimates of the Joint Committee on Taxation and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. They also suggest that tax rates on capital gains cannot be raised too high without
ultimately reducing revenue.”
And your liar fake economist says there is no evidence and yet the CBO says there is and the CBO even says it confirms previous research findings. So in other words, there is tons of evidence to say that higher capital gains taxes rates lowers capital gains realizations and revenues. So your source, and you, are a liar and ignorant.
“a significant realizations response is much
greater for very-high-income taxpayers than for the remainder of the population,”
“relatively modest percentage changes
in the realizations response translate into much larger percentage changes in the net revenue effect of a tax change.”
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/84xx/doc8449/88-cbo-007.pdf
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11346.pdf
The JCT estimates that the revenue maximizing rate is probably 23%.
In other words, TRA probably got a lot right. Same rate for ordinary income as capital gains. Same 28% rate on everything. In fact, that is pretty much exactly what Bowles Simpson says too. So there is tons of evidence to the universal 28% rate, there are tons of studies and people who have come to this conclusion. But you just have already made up your mind so you scream “lalalalala I can’t hear you” and call that thinking.
#21 by Richard Warnick on October 20, 2012 - 4:37 pm
Jared Bernstein is a Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. From 2009 to 2011, Bernstein was the Chief Economist and Economic Adviser to Vice President Joseph Biden.
brewski is an pseudonymous blog commenter who claims to know economics.
#22 by cav on October 20, 2012 - 4:44 pm
A harsher of buzzes, kiting info like he’s fresh out of a Koch camp, (which he probably is).
#23 by Richard Warnick on October 20, 2012 - 4:53 pm
Experts Agree That Capital Gains Tax Cuts Lose Revenue
Raise capital gains taxes. The low capital gains rate is a major contributor to income inequality, and a way for the investor class to make out like bandits.
#24 by brewski on October 20, 2012 - 5:24 pm
I give you the CBO, JCT, NBER and you give me these clowns? Ha!
#25 by Richard Warnick on October 20, 2012 - 5:33 pm
I’m with the 99 Percent. The 1 Percent are going to have to pay their fair share of taxes. Bottom line.
#26 by brewski on October 20, 2012 - 5:36 pm
I’m with actual people who actually know what they are talking about. I am not with people who lie about their professions. You are with the liars. Apologize!
#27 by Richard Warnick on October 20, 2012 - 5:48 pm
Maybe we can make a deal if you agree that the capital gains rate ought to be increased to 23 percent. That would be a start. Romney’s idea is a non-starter.
#28 by brewski on October 20, 2012 - 6:48 pm
Simpson Bowles takes capital gains up to 26%. Let’s agree on Simpson Bowles.
#29 by cav on October 20, 2012 - 7:03 pm
No!
Absurd Cockamamie!
#30 by Richard Warnick on October 21, 2012 - 10:22 am
Bowles-Simpson proposed taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. The only problem is, they want to cut the income tax rates for the rich as low as 24 percent. That’s unacceptable.
#31 by brewski on October 21, 2012 - 5:08 pm
Would you be against a top rate of 23% if it meant the rich paid more?
#32 by cav on October 21, 2012 - 5:52 pm
Oh, this is rich:
http://theimpolitic.blogspot.com/2012/10/mitt-outsources-his-campaign-workers.html
#33 by cav on October 21, 2012 - 6:04 pm
“Mitt Romney’s campaign yesterday announced a “Military Advisory Council” of retired military officers who support his candidacy for president. “While many of those on the Council are clearly decorated veterans,” boldprogressive.org’s Zaid Jilani observes, “One curious aspect of the list is how many of these military figures left the government only to become highly paid consultants and board members to major weapons makers.” Romney plans on increasing military spending by more than $2 trillion should he become president (without any plan to pay for it)…”
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/18/1044441/romneys-new-military-advisory-council-packed-with-military-contractors/
#34 by Richard Warnick on October 21, 2012 - 7:32 pm
General Tommy Franks has been rated the fourth-worst general in U.S. history. Plus, he was on the board of Bank of America when they helped crash our economy. Sadly, he’s typical of the Bushie retreads on Romney’s team.
#35 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 6:31 am
Apparently Richard is against increasing Warren Buffett’s taxes by 130%.
#36 by Richard Warnick on October 22, 2012 - 8:51 am
Or by 60%, which is what a 9 percent increase would be.
#37 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 9:23 am
Wrong. Check your data and get back to be when you are informed.
#38 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 9:50 am
‘Informed’ being seeing it with the same slant as our Mr. Suds-head.
The ‘One True Slant’.
#39 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 22, 2012 - 10:23 am
As opposed to a 5 trillion dollar hole these last 4 year?
1+1+1+!1= 4 trillion
obama’s debt 5 trillion.
Hmm we’ll save trillion with romney, even if progressive new math is correct. It is plain silly on its face no matter the figure.
Look at it this way cav, how much more motivated will you be to stand up for peace and justice if romney is president? Given the drones, IDWC of the NDAA. remaining Patriot Act, foreign policy disasters, bombing raids all day, open threats to Iran, sanctions etc etc. how much worse can it be? At least once again you will have someone to hate which seems to be required for progressives to attach their moral bearings.
Whatever it takes for this sworn American.
Here is the upshot from Christie, it’s beautiful, in a Jersey Shore kinda way.
http://nation.foxnews.com/chris-christie/2012/10/22/must-watch-chris-christies-epic-takedown-obama
#40 by Richard Warnick on October 22, 2012 - 10:42 am
The top drivers of deficit spending are (1) Bush’s Tax Cuts For The Rich, and (2) the ongoing economic crisis caused by Bush’s Great Recession. You can call it “Obama’s debt” if you want, but it would have happened no matter who was President.
Now Romney wants to (1) Keep the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich (ten-year cost $2 trillion), (2) Add another $5 trillion in tax cuts, and (3) Throw away $2 trillion in additional military spending. That’s $9 trillion in debt right there.
#41 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 10:57 am
So you are still against raising Buffett’s taxes by 130% ?
Unbelievable.
#42 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 22, 2012 - 11:14 am
That is most bassackwards assessment of the reality I have seen in a while Richard.
The budget is the budget is the budget and spending is the spending is the spending…that is all it has to do with, the fantasies about revenue you are replaying in your head over and over is a form of political porn.
Anal.
#43 by Richard Warnick on October 22, 2012 - 11:15 am
Government revenue helps ameliorate income inequality, and makes possible the survival of the middle class. The 1 Percent who want to wipe out the middle class are trying to starve the government of revenue so they can eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Let’s go over the “fiscal cliff” first, and sort things out next year. That’s what I want to do.
#44 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 22, 2012 - 11:16 am
I cannot wait!! It might at least slow up the military MURDERFEST!!!
#45 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 22, 2012 - 11:19 am
If it is to END, then EVERYONE shall feel the lash of what this MURDEFEST is costing us in TREASURE and FORTUNES!
If this is what it will take to get Americans to STOP their governance from MURDER….THEN LET US BEAR IT!!!!
Or suffer consequences and losses that CANNOT be EARTHLY REPLACED!!!
Do not be a STUPID PEOPLE!!
#46 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 22, 2012 - 11:21 am
It is in this corrupted world without any semblance of reason that I can if able compel my people, Americans…to now once and for all…
Do the right thing.
#47 by Richard Warnick on October 22, 2012 - 11:23 am
UPDATE: Fox Business host Stuart Varney admits that Romney’s tax plan is mathematically impossible.
#48 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 12:16 pm
http://welcomebacktopottersville.blogspot.com/2012/10/for-sale-one-democracy-slightly-used-of.html
And where is all of the media?
#49 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 12:22 pm
In the spirit of the times, and not to single out Warren Buffett, I say why stop at 130%? As the MOTU have been modelling…Why not just steal ALL of it? (with the proverbial ‘fountain pen, of course).
#50 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 12:25 pm
Finally. will the ‘Master-of-All-Threads, and humorless sock-puppet operator, PLEASE find himself a firm ear of corn for his not so closeted anal edification?
#51 by Richard Warnick on October 22, 2012 - 12:45 pm
I’m all in favor of investigating supposedly rigged e-voting machines (or just getting rid of them). But Aviva Shen on Think Progress suggests that the conspiracy theory about Ohio could prove counterproductive.
#52 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 12:45 pm
To the Ghost of all things known and unknown;
Billy Graham and the Mormon Brotherhood will fix you.
#53 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 1:17 pm
Richard is on the record against raising Buffett’s taxes by 130%.
Richard is on the record of causing 2 million more people to be unemployed.
Richard is on the record of wanting $9/gallon gasoline.
Richard is on the record of defending tax unfairness.
What a tool.
#54 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 22, 2012 - 1:21 pm
All of us against the church? UFC rules?
#55 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 1:25 pm
Richard,
#47
That isn’t what he said. You lie!!!
#56 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 1:42 pm
You go to extrajudicial and drone assassinations with the President you have …
#57 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 22, 2012 - 1:50 pm
Trade for the new one, hold them to account, presidents are weakest in their first term, tell me you don’t want a crack at romney?
At least he would motivate you to at least make some show of complaint about our murderous foreign policy.
#58 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 2:02 pm
I’ll see your ‘first term weakness’ and raise you one ENTIRE Chimp eight years starting from day one!
And what’s the use of complaining? We already know who’s getting the oil.
Even while Obama’s never been Liberal, his ever so slim centrality – compared to the alternative, suggest to me that the tightening noose may at least be slowed. In that perhaps minimally extended time FDR might be resurrected.
You’ll flame me, but, a fella’s gotta dream.
#59 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 2:27 pm
Martin Basher uses pretty good tunage.
#60 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 22, 2012 - 3:10 pm
FDR was a fascist, we can trace this precedent for all we see today to his abuses.
“If you choose your security over your Liberty you will soon have neither”
Ben Franklin… I defer to genius.
#61 by Richard Warnick on October 22, 2012 - 3:28 pm
brewski
Stuart Varney was talking about Romney’s risible “bucket” scheme for deductions. He said, “I cannot calculate how much money would be brought in.” In other words, making the 20 percent tax cut for the rich revenue neutral would be mathematically impossible using the “bucket.” Everyone knows Romney wants to cut taxes for the rich, and nobody is buying this latest dodge.
#62 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 3:32 pm
“I can’t calculate” is not the same as “it is impossible”.
I can’t calculate the thrust of a 747, that does not mean it is impossible for a 747 to fly.
Are you stupid?
#63 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 3:37 pm
By the way, you never apologized for calling someone an economist who is clearly not? How come?
#64 by Richard Warnick on October 22, 2012 - 3:49 pm
The “bucket” doesn’t make sense. It’s simply a transparent ploy so Romney-Ryan can try to get away with claiming they would reduce tax expenditures without having to say which ones. Varney is a smart guy, he knows this, but he couldn’t come right out and speak the truth on Faux News. So he phrased it diplomatically.
You mean the former Chief Economist and Economic Adviser to the Vice President of the United States? He’s an economist.
#65 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 4:13 pm
You’re a fucking idiot if you call someone an economist who has no training of any kind in economics. Has he published peer-reviewed articles in economic journals? No. He is nothing.
Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts where he studied double bass
Masters Degree in Social Work
Masters Degree in Philosophy
Ph.D. in Social Welfare.
None zip zero nada.
So what that tells me that he was Biden’s economics advisor is that Biden doesn’t know an economist from a hole in the ground. Which is not surprising given the racist idiot from Delaware’s track record on pretty much everything else.
#66 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 4:14 pm
Capping deductions is a huge tax increase on the wealthy. Amazing you are too stupid to get it.
#67 by Richard Warnick on October 22, 2012 - 4:26 pm
Tell me how the “bucket” pays for $5 trillion in Romney-Ryan tax cuts for the rich. Never mind $4 trillion for the Bush Tax Cuts and increased war spending.
#68 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 5:02 pm
Brew, maybe in the short term, while we wait for the debate to begin, you could find a little time to go fuck yourself.
#69 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 5:04 pm
I already showed you the math to pay for the $5 trillion. Try to keep up. He never said that cap on deductions would raise $5 trillion. Unlike how Obama DID say he would lower premiums by $2500.
#70 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 5:05 pm
Cav, getting beat with evidence really puts you in a bad mood.
#71 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 5:07 pm
Beat with the evidence? What planet are you on?
#72 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 5:23 pm
The planet where someone who has no training of any kind in economics is not called an economist. This one.
#73 by Richard Warnick on October 22, 2012 - 5:32 pm
Sorry, I forgot to factor in voodoo economics (er, I mean “dynamic scoring”).
#74 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 5:36 pm
Still bad-rapping Jared Bernstein? On Earth, we’re compelled to move forward. And I’m not simply referring to time.
#75 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 5:48 pm
Can you confirm for us if Kolob too is flat?
#76 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 9:37 pm
I move on when people stop repeating a lie over and over again like Goebbels with Tourettes.
#77 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 9:38 pm
I’m not mormon.
#78 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 10:26 pm
Sorry to hear that. No planet (flat or otherwise) for you then.