Romney lies that he expects America to swallow

Being out of connectivity the past two weeks (great camping on the Uncompahgre), time to catch up on the fun and games. Let's start by discussing some of the great lies by Romney during the debate.
First one- his tax plan. Romney claims that his tax plan will not cut taxes on the rich, and will not raise taxes on the middle class. Liar, liar, pants of fire.

"My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people," he said.

Romney has also said the plan won't increase the deficit and that it would be paid for by closing tax loopholes.

According to the Tax Policy Center, which even Romney states is non-partisan and fair, the Romney tax plan will:

The plan would reduce the six current income tax rates by one-fifth, bringing the top rate down from 35 percent to 28 percent and the bottom rate from 10 percent to 8 percent.

allow a “tax holiday” for the repatriation of corporate profits held overseas. (which rewards those companies outsourcing jobs overseas, giving them a huge tax break for profiting by moving jobs to China and India).

would move the corporate tax to a territorial system. (again giving tax breaks to those who outsource jobs to China and India).

TPC estimates that on a static basis, the Romney plan would lower federal tax liability by about $900 billion in calendar year 2015 compared with current law, roughly a 24 percent cut in total projected revenue. Relative to a current policy baseline, the reduction in liability would be about $480 billion in calendar year 2015.

the overall pattern of tax changes would be qualitatively the same—the largest tax cuts as a share of after-tax income would go to the highest income taxpayers.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopic ... y-plan.cfm

Sounds like a tax cut to me benefiting the rich to me.

As to his claim that his plan would not raise taxes on middle class, just look at his plan to limit deductions to $17,000. How many middle class households take less than $17,000 in deductions? By the time you add up home mortgage deductions, deductions for dependents, charitable giving, medical expenses, and if you own your own business, Schedule C deductions, etc., the taxes on most households will increase substantially.

Yet another analysis of the Romney plan by another nonpartisan think tank.

This paper examines the tradeoffs among three competing goals that are inherent in a revenue-neutral income tax reform—maintaining tax revenues, ensuring a progressive tax system, and lowering marginal tax rates. As a motivating example, we estimate the degree to which individual income tax expenditures would have to be limited to achieve revenue neutrality under the individual income tax rates and other features advanced in presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s tax plan, and how the required reductions in tax breaks could change the distribution of the tax burden across households.

Specifically, it is not possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that does not reduce average tax burdens and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers under the conditions described above, even when we try to make the plan as progressive as possible. For instance, our calibration of the upper limit suggests that even by eliminating tax expenditures ‘starting at the top’—where we combine the proposed rate cuts with complete elimination of tax expenditures for taxpayers with income over $200,000—after-tax income would still increase by 4.1 percent among taxpayers with income over $1,000,000 and 0.8 percent for taxpayers earning between $200,000 to $500,000. (That translates to a tax decrease of $87,000 and $1,800 for those two groups.) However, on average, after-tax income for taxpayers earning less than $200,000 would need to decrease by 1.2 percent, an effective tax increase of $500 per household.[8] (Revenue neutrality would require eliminating 58 percent of total tax expenditures for these households.)
In order to form a revenue neutral plan, the proposed revenue reductions from lower rates must be financed with an equal-value elimination or reduction in available tax preferences. (In our analysis, we assume that eliminating preferences that lower rates on savings and investment is off the table.) Offsetting the $360 billion in revenue losses necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures. Such a reduction by itself would be unprecedented, 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 EITC and child tax credit.

The key intuition behind our central result is that, because the total value of the available tax expenditures (once tax expenditures for capital income are excluded) going to high-income taxpayers is smaller than the tax cuts that would accrue to high-income taxpayers, high-income taxpayers must necessarily face a lower net tax burden. As a result, maintaining revenue neutrality mathematically necessitates a shift in the tax burden of at least $86 billion away from high-income taxpayers onto lower- and middle-income taxpayers. This is true even under the assumption that the maximum amount of revenue possible is obtained from cutting tax expenditures for high-income households.
The above estimates assume that all available tax expenditures for higher-income households are completely eliminated—tax expenditures that include deductions for charitable contributions, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and exclusions from income of health insurance and other fringe benefits. To the degree any of these were even partially retained for high-income households, the net tax cuts for high-income households and tax increases for low- and middle-income households would be even larger.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/paper ... ale-looney

So once again Romney lies to the American public.

You can lower the tax rate and increase the tax yields. One great example, sin taxes, as cigarette tax rates have increased, yields to local goverments have declined as more people quit smoking.

Your models assume we are going to have the same crappy economy Obama has put us in for the last four years.

Another example, compare the economy after Reagan took over from Carter, inflation remained high along with unemployment for a couple years but eventually both got better.

If Romney is elected, the economy will change.

FredHayek wrote: You can lower the tax rate and increase the tax yields. One great example, sin taxes, as cigarette tax rates have increased, yields to local goverments have declined as more people quit smoking.

Your models assume we are going to have the same crappy economy Obama has put us in for the last four years.

Another example, compare the economy after Reagan took over from Carter, inflation remained high along with unemployment for a couple years but eventually both got better.

If Romney is elected, the economy will change.

My "models" do not account for the economy, only on the tax revenues. Romney claims his tax plan is revenue neutral, so the state of the economy does not factor into it.

Reagan and Carter do not enter into it, but I get that you are trying to deflect away from trying to defend the lies that Romney has put before the American public.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

FredHayek wrote: You can lower the tax rate and increase the tax yields. One great example, sin taxes, as cigarette tax rates have increased, yields to local goverments have declined as more people quit smoking.

Your models assume we are going to have the same crappy economy Obama has put us in for the last four years.

Another example, compare the economy after Reagan took over from Carter, inflation remained high along with unemployment for a couple years but eventually both got better.

If Romney is elected, the economy will change.

My "models" do not account for the economy, only on the tax revenues. Romney claims his tax plan is revenue neutral, so the state of the economy does not factor into it.

Reagan and Carter do not enter into it, but I get that you are trying to deflect away from trying to defend the lies that Romney has put before the American public.

What's the best way to get the most sustained revenue... is it through taxation or economic growth?

Heisenberg wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

FredHayek wrote: You can lower the tax rate and increase the tax yields. One great example, sin taxes, as cigarette tax rates have increased, yields to local goverments have declined as more people quit smoking.

Your models assume we are going to have the same crappy economy Obama has put us in for the last four years.

Another example, compare the economy after Reagan took over from Carter, inflation remained high along with unemployment for a couple years but eventually both got better.

If Romney is elected, the economy will change.

My "models" do not account for the economy, only on the tax revenues. Romney claims his tax plan is revenue neutral, so the state of the economy does not factor into it.

Reagan and Carter do not enter into it, but I get that you are trying to deflect away from trying to defend the lies that Romney has put before the American public.

What's the best way to get the most sustained revenue... is it through taxation or economic growth?

Hobson's choice. But keep on trying to deflect from the topic, which is the lies that Romney expects the American voter to swallow.

You liberals never answer that question. You seem to think you can squeeze the successful enough to pay down the debt and pay for entitlements without first growing the economy. Raising taxes compounds the problem if the economy is on shaky ground.

I don't know a single liberal that thinks that we can bring down the debt and pay for entitlements simply by squeezing the successful. Where did you ever get that idea? Care to share your source for that statement. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those making over 250000/yr is but one small part of a strategy to bring down the debt. No one has ever suggested that is a single solution. Liberals have always asked for a balanced approach...cut spending and raise revenue. Conservatives only seem interested in one side of the ledger....cuts. It is more effective to work both sides of the economic equation just as a family would when faced with high debt.....cut spending and expenses AND increase income.

Let's make a new motto --- America swallows. Monica swallowed - why can't we?

Look - both of these clowns piss yellow pee. It won't make one bit of difference.

Vote for Romney - and corporate America gets a free pass to Vegas, starring America in the whorehouse.

Vote for BO - he gives you a sedative before you get screwed. Bonus -- the whorehouse is well regulated.

Oh yeah - long live democracy in America

---

NOT.