Can Romney get away with the Lollipop Tax Cut 'Plan' Until November?

Romney, as you all know, (and real conservatives must cringe if not post), has proposed a 20% Across the board tax cut to be made up by closing "Loopholes."
The biggest election year populist 'beauty' ever.

While the real/sane debate has been whether to let the Bush 10% cuts expire and/or for who.. Romney is just blowin em away. Free Money!
It's such an gross scam, it made the Clinton "arithmetic" speech possible and effective.
Even some sober conservatives are now asking the obvious.

George Will Questions The Arithmetic Of Romney's Tax Plan | TPM LiveWire
SAHIL KAPUR 12:36 PM EDT, SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 9, 2012

On ABC's "This Week" roundtable Sunday, conservative columnist George Will questioned the mathematical soundness of the Romney-Ryan tax cut plan. It's estimated to cost trillions of dollars but Mitt Romney vows that it will be revenue neutral by closing unspecified loopholes on high-income taxpayers.

"There is uncertainty surrounding the Romney-Ryan tax cut plan, because they have Not Specified the deductions that will be closed," Will said. "And we Know where the Big Money is: Mortgage interest deductions, charitable deductions, taxing that's compensation, which it is, employee-provided Health Insurance, and state and local taxes. All of those, you either hit only the rich, in which case you don't get much money, or you hit the middle class."

Asked to provide details of their plan in separate interviews on Sunday talk shows, Romney and Paul Ryan repeatedly declined.
Romney Refuses To Offer Details On His Tax Plan | TPM2012

Click to expand...

So again, the question is How can they be allowed, even by their own party, to continue foisting this Fraud? Until after the election?
Do the really think the can get away with that?
They're counting on American Greed and Stupidity.

cont'd

Ryan had proposed a similar plan 2 years ago.

Ryan Budget Plan Would Cut Income Taxes for Millionaires by at Least $187,000 Annually and Facilitate Corporate Tax Avoidance | CTJReports

[........]

Why the Ryan Budget Plan Does Not Specify How It Would Pay for Tax Rate Reductions

As explained already, the Ryan budget plan calls for closing tax loopholes and tax subsidies to offset the costs of reducing tax rates (beyond the rate reductions that are part of the Bush tax cuts) but does not name any particular tax loophole or tax subsidy to be repealed.

There may be a very specific Reason for this Vagueness. Two years ago, when Rep. Ryan offered a budget plan that would allow individuals to pay income taxes at a top rate of 25% and repeal the corporate income tax, he did propose a specific way to offset the costs — a regressive value-added tax (VAT).

Citizens for Tax Justice analyzed the tax components of that plan and found that, on average, taxpayers among the richest 10% would pay less in taxes while taxpayers among the bottom 90 percent would pay more. We also found that the plan would reduce revenues by $2 trillion over ten years.[8]

The truth is that it is very difficult to lower the top income tax rate to 25% and offset the costs simply by eliminating or reducing tax expenditures.
That’s why Ryan’s previous plan relied on a regressive VAT.
Rep. Ryan probably (correctly) decided the budget plans he would present last year and this year would seem more appealing if he left that detail out of it.

Click to expand...

IOW, the Plan either has to hit every "loophole" (read "deduction") possible .. OR institute a VAT as it orginally WAS constituted.
Now dropped.
Welcome to Lala land.

When the loophole question comes up, I want reporters to say: "How about carried interest?"

My friend who went to Wharton Business school and works on wall street says that carried interest loophole for private equity and hedge fund managers, is one of the biggest scams of all time.

mbig said:

Romney, as you all know, (and real conservatives must cringe if not post), has proposed a 20% Across the board tax cut to be made up by closing "Loopholes."
The biggest election year populist 'beauty' ever.

While the real/sane debate has been whether to let the Bush 10% cuts expire and/or for who.. Romney is just blowin em away. Free Money!
It's such an gross scam, it made the Clinton "arithmetic" speech possible and effective.
Even some sober conservatives are now asking the obvious.

George Will Questions The Arithmetic Of Romney's Tax Plan | TPM LiveWire
SAHIL KAPUR 12:36 PM EDT, SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 9, 2012


So again, the question is How can they be allowed, even by their own party, to continue foisting this Fraud? Until after the election?
Do the really think the can get away with that?
They're counting on American Greed and Stupidity.

cont'd

Click to expand...

Let's say Romney's elected and has a majority in the house and senate. (hahaha) Let's say he's able to accomplish whatever he wants with changes in deductions. (hahaha) Then, for incomes over $250,000, let's say, the following could get done:

• No mortgage interest deduction.
• No real estate tax deduction.
• Income tax paid on company perks like health insurance premiums and many other things.
• No charitable contribution deductions.

I think this list covers the ones you listed above. Now tell me: How are middle class earners going to be effected by that?

It will put more money in the treasury. It will also seem more fair to the average bear.

*Disallowing charitable contributions as deductions is a bit problematic to me; but that's not what the OP is discussing.

MaggieD said:

Let's say Romney's elected and has a majority in the house and senate. (hahaha) Let's say he's able to accomplish whatever he wants with changes in deductions. (hahaha) Then, for incomes over $250,000, let's say, the following could get done:

• No mortgage interest deduction.
• No real estate tax deduction.
• Income tax paid on company perks like health insurance premiums and many other things.
• No charitable contribution deductions.

I think this list covers the ones you listed above. Now tell me: How are middle class earners going to be effected by that?

It will put more money in the treasury. It will also seem more fair to the average bear.

*Disallowing charitable contributions as deductions is a bit problematic to me; but that's not what the OP is discussing.

Click to expand...

Huh?
"for incomes over 250k" is NOT even the stealth the Romney Plan. It's for everyone.
Which is why the can't name a single "loophole" they'd close.
Not only would it NOT "put more money in the Treasury", it wouldn't come even Close to being "revenue neutral" under the terms you laid out. Not even close.
See George Wills comments above.

mbig said:

Huh?
"for incomes over 250k" s NO the Romney Plan.
Not only would it NOT "put more money in the Treasury", it wouldn't come even Close to being "revenue neutral" under the terms you laid out. Not even close.
See George Wills comments above.

Click to expand...

I don't understand. How does "revenue neutral" come into it? The loss of all of these deductions would bring money into the Treasury.

The flaw of the tax code is exactly the "loopholes," not the tax rate. Romney is correct.

MaggieD said:

I don't understand. How does "revenue neutral" come into it? The loss of all of these deductions would bring money into the Treasury.

Click to expand...

Wrong. It's a big net loser after an across the board 20% Tax CUT you seem to gloss over.
Note Ryan had to put a large VAT to make ends meet on a near identical plan I linked and cited above.
You're not reading what's posted and that's two in a row so...
Nor has Romeny conceded a single thing you said. Not one.

mbig said:

Wrong. It's a big net loser after an across the board 20% Tax CUT you seem to gloss over.
Note Ryan had to put a large VAT to make ends meet on a near identical plan I linked and cited above.
You're not reading what's posted and that's two in a row so...

Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't read your post carefully enough. My suggestions do nothing to make up for a 20% across-the-board tax cut.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney insists that his plan to cut tax rates by 20% across the board wouldn't increase the federal deficit because he'd eliminate some of the loopholes used by the wealthy. Those changes, combined with faster economic growth, would keep government revenue rising at its current rate, Romney argues.

Click to expand...

Your post is somewhat misleading, because it's talking about mortgage interest deductions, etc., when Romney is discussing closing loopholes. Mortgage interest deductions et al are not loopholes.

MaggieD said:

Let's say Romney's elected and has a majority in the house and senate. (hahaha) Let's say he's able to accomplish whatever he wants with changes in deductions. (hahaha) Then, for incomes over $250,000, let's say, the following could get done:

• No mortgage interest deduction.
• No real estate tax deduction.
• Income tax paid on company perks like health insurance premiums and many other things.
• No charitable contribution deductions.

I think this list covers the ones you listed above. Now tell me: How are middle class earners going to be effected by that?

It will put more money in the treasury. It will also seem more fair to the average bear.

*Disallowing charitable contributions as deductions is a bit problematic to me; but that's not what the OP is discussing.

Click to expand...

I would love to see these enacted. I sincerely doubt that this is what romney would try to forward though.

The reality is it is not going to work. First you have the huge problem of getting it by congress who loves the loopholes. After all, they made them for a reason, and it would probably hurt them with their lobbyists and financial supporters to just toss them away. This means romney will not even have his own party's support for doing this. Then you have to wonder who is really going to buy this insane idea that you would just get 20 percent less taxes. The money has to come from somewhere so if you are paying 20 percent less straight income taxes you will lose the deductions and end up paying the same amount. It is like when a car salesman offers you up insane money back or some stupid money for your trade in. Sure, it seems great but you pay it back on a higher purchase price and a ****ty interest rate.

romney is trying to buy votes with a plan he can't do by himself. he has to have congress with him, and he is just not that strong with his base.

For anyone who thinks it is true where are we going to get the extra money from to cover the income loss from this? if we don't get it in taxes we borrow money to cover it. if romney passed this unbalanced budget idea we would have to borrow record amounts just to keep the government running. For any of the anarchists who say good let it fall, who is going to protect your **** when the roaming riots come for you? I don't think cops are going to volunteer to protect you out of the goodness of their hearts. It is the government that establishes and protects the idea of money and ownership. Without their protection you have 300 million people with no reason not to take everything you own. You can believe me they will form their own authority and take what you have.

MaggieD said:

Yeah, I didn't read your post carefully enough. My suggestions do nothing to make up for a 20% across-the-board tax cut.

Click to expand...

Small detail.

Your post is somewhat misleading, because it's talking about mortgage interest deductions, etc., when Romney is discussing closing loopholes. Mortgage interest deductions et al are not loopholes.

Click to expand...

Not Misleading.
Romney is though.

That's the problem. He hasn't "discussed" anything!
That's what I want.
That's the point Of the string.
There are few "loopholes" (small items) that could make up for a 20% Tax Cut without the Biggies Like, but not limited to, Mortgage interest deduction.
See George Will's statement in the OP.

Mortgage interest deductions:

Click to expand...

Close that one, and income taxes become much more fair, but the real estate market takes another big hit.

charitable deductions:

Click to expand...

That one would bring in more revenue while discouraging private charity.

taxing that's compensation, which it is:

Click to expand...

?? I have no idea what that means.

employee-provided Health Insurance:

Click to expand...

Would again make taxes more fair, as people who don't work for large companies can't take advantage. It would also put a lot less money into many, many middle class wallets.

and state and local taxes:

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be double taxation?

Let's hope that the likely unintended consequences are considered before any big changes in the tax code.

mbig said:

Small detail.

Not Misleading.
Romney is though.

That's the problem. He hasn't "discussed" anything!
That's what I want.
That's the point Of the string.
There are few "loopholes" (small items) that could make up for a 20% Tax Cut without the Biggies Like, but not limited to, Mortgage interest deduction.
See George Will's statement in the OP.

Click to expand...

Not to beat the horse to death, but my point is that the mortgage interest tax deduction and the other ones on Will's list are not what I, at least, consider loopholes. I doubt that was what Romney was referring to...but who knows? I wish someone would make those changes I listed though.

One only has to look at Romney's 2010 return to get an idea of the loopholes he's talking about, in my opinion.

I'm disgusted with both Romney and Obama. Neither one has laid out any kind of concrete plan for going forward. Just a lot of rhetoric.

To start could they not close the loopholes then reduce the tax rate accordingly so that the whole thing is a wash? That would be the most reasonable middle of the road approach to get started.

mbig said:

Romney, as you all know, (and real conservatives must cringe if not post), has proposed a 20% Across the board tax cut to be made up by closing "Loopholes."
The biggest election year populist 'beauty' ever.

While the real/sane debate has been whether to let the Bush 10% cuts expire and/or for who.. Romney is just blowin em away. Free Money!
It's such an gross scam, it made the Clinton "arithmetic" speech possible and effective.
Even some sober conservatives are now asking the obvious.

George Will Questions The Arithmetic Of Romney's Tax Plan | TPM LiveWire
SAHIL KAPUR 12:36 PM EDT, SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 9, 2012


So again, the question is How can they be allowed, even by their own party, to continue foisting this Fraud? Until after the election?
Do the really think the can get away with that?
They're counting on American Greed and Stupidity.

cont'd

Click to expand...

Romney's Plan is revenue neutral and will spur economic growth

http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf

Nice try though

Bronson said:

Romney's Plan is revenue neutral and will spur economic growth

http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf

Nice try though

Click to expand...

So you quoted a sycophant's thesis paper? It is nice they wrote a thesis paper and all, but since romney has not specified exactly what he would try to do that is all speculation based on some guys thoughts as written in the first few sentences. That is nice and all, but your entire point rests on the infallibility of princeton students, and considering how many of their graduates helped to make the collapses in the past few decades we cannot determine that they are infallible. Now, unless this guy can read romney's mind and can give us some information we did not have before we have no real reason to listen to his musings. Let us say he was completely correct for the moment and it is possible under his plan, his plan is not Romney's plan and they are not the same person.

So your point is moot in defending Romney even before we bother tearing apart his paper.

tererun said:

So you quoted a sycophant's thesis paper? It is nice they wrote a thesis paper and all, but since romney has not specified exactly what he would try to do that is all speculation based on some guys thoughts as written in the first few sentences. That is nice and all, but your entire point rests on the infallibility of princeton students, and considering how many of their graduates helped to make the collapses in the past few decades we cannot determine that they are infallible. Now, unless this guy can read romney's mind and can give us some information we did not have before we have no real reason to listen to his musings. Let us say he was completely correct for the moment and it is possible under his plan, his plan is not Romney's plan and they are not the same person.

So your point is moot in defending Romney even before we bother tearing apart his paper.

Click to expand...

Precisely.
The poor 'sycophant' has to guess/assume cuts NOT named or in evidence and may never be.

The analysis - which is of the Growth aspect and assumes Romney will have to do what he says he isn't doing - putting a bigger burden on the Middle/Lower Class which.. Romney denies.

The Intro also of course mentions the reason for the confusion. Insufficient data. and of course.... impossibility.
Your link:

"...In a recent paper that has garnered a lot of attention, Washington’s Tax Policy Center (TPC) has challenged this assertion, arguing that it is mathematically impossible for the Romney proposal to achieve all these goals.

Specifically, the TPC argues that under the Romney proposal, high-income taxpayers would receive a tax cut, and given that the proposal is revenue neutral, this would inevitably lead to increased taxes for families with low and moderate incomes. The TPC paper has set off a spirited debate.

Because the Romney proposal does NOT specify in detail just what tax preferences might be eliminated or scaled back in order to broaden the tax base, much of the debate has focused on what provisions would be politically and
administratively feasible."...

Click to expand...

IOW, and as I said, he simply won't name/"specify" another 'loophole' (aka deduction) he's going to take away to make up for the windfall loss of a 20% tax cut.
I'm demanding he name those Beauties (before November) while the analysis you cite just assumes he's Lying and Will hit the middle more and goes from 'there' on whether it's 'good for growth' or not. "There' being a place Romney denies exists - Middle Class additional burden.

It's NOT even a Remotely Credible position to not name a single loophole (deduction) when you've instituted Trillions in Tax cuts that have to be made up for.

Nice try tho Bronson.

OK, here are the uh, "loopholes," where Romney said he'll make back the Trillions (over 10 years) lost from a 20% Income Tax Cut.
And it may even be worse/Aggravated since I believe he wants to drop Cap Gains taxes altogether, instead of Raising the rate to that of ordinary income.

Sept 26, 2012 - 4:48 p.m. ET
Romney Says Tax Cut Wouldn't Be 'Huge' - WSJ.com
By SARA MURRAY And JARED A. FAVOLE

WESTERVILLE, Ohio—After months on the trail Touting a Major across-the-board tax cut, Mitt Romney told an Ohio crowd Not to look forward to a "huge cut in taxes."

"I want to bring the rates down," Mr. Romney said at a rally here Wednesday, but "don't be expecting a huge cut in taxes, because I'm also going to lower deductions and exemptions." The Republican presidential nominee appeared to acknowledge Wednesday that the tax-rate cut of 20% he promised for all Americans wouldn't provide as much relief as some may have hoped.

President Barack Obama, also campaigning in Ohio, pounced on the tax remarks. Mr. Romney has an "arithmetic" problem, the president said.

"My opponent, and his allies in Congress, tell us somehow we can lower the deficit by spending trillions more on new tax breaks for the wealthy," Mr. Obama told supporters at Bowling Green State University just six days before early voting begins in Ohio. Mr. Obama is seeking to solidify his lead in a series of polls in the important swing state.

Earlier this year, Mr. Romney rolled out a sweeping tax plan that would keep Bush-era tax cuts and further cut rates by 20% for all Americans. He said he would pay for it by limiting or killing deductions for high-earners and that it would drive economic growth, which would offset the rest of the cost.

Mr. Obama said Mr. Romney has avoided being specific about how he would pay for the tax cuts and new military spending. "They can't explain it because the math doesn't add up," Mr. Obama said.

Click to expand...

I say be honest GOP.
It doesn't add up unless you put in the VAT Ryan HAD put in it make it do so.
Rotsa Ruck.

They ARE going to try and make it all the way to the election.
Great vid by TYT (the Young Turks) showing Ryan and Romney Goofily dodging questions for Any specific cuts.

joko104 said:

The flaw of the tax code is exactly the "loopholes," not the tax rate. Romney is correct.

Click to expand...

Everyone is in agreement its the loopholes that make the tax code so infernally complex and need to be revised.

the issue on the other hand is what loopholes should be closed and how much can that effectively offset Romney's proposed tax cuts.

Seems that without also increasing taxes on capital gains, dividends, estates over $5million to name but a few and also eliminate the farce of carried interest, if for nothing else than fairness.

But, it seems that romney et.al. aren't going to tell anyone what exactly is the plan.

Bronson said:

Romney's Plan is revenue neutral and will spur economic growth

http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf

Nice try though

Click to expand...

I've read the whole thing, and I must say he tries real hard to arrive at his conclusion.
HIs growth rate forecast uses 2 5 and 7%, based as near as I can tell on speculation, something he calls micro-dynamic behaviour, am income distribution model form 2009 when incomes were still moving downwards and comparatives of other recoveries (which given the circumstances is not anywhere close to a given).

He also assumes that with growth, both income, dividends and capital gains would increase by at least the growth rate. There has never been a time in the past 50 years where middle/low class incomes increased at the rate of growth or more. This situation is exacerbated by the steady decline in union membership. Of course one can expect dividends and capital gains to increase at some reasonable rate approaching growth.

However, this entire scenerio is inward looking. It does not take into account the global economic turmoil and the massive effects this has on trade.

romney also as included as part of this recovery plan, energy independence by iirc 2020. this would necessitate enormous increases in capital investment on behalf of the energy industry and would require incentivization of those industries. It takes many years to bring an oil or gas well online. It takes even longer to build pipelines etc. So this assumption might appear logical, but in implementation it is heavily weighted from middle to end, meaning that real economic acceleration would not start to happen until some time in 2016 if then.

Another pillar of his plan is increasing free trade agreements. The last three deals that Obama signed but that were initiated in the bush era have taken on average 8 years to be vetted and approved. So, even if he could accelerate that process, he'd be looking at least 4 years to signing and then a period of years in implementation. That pillar's benefits would not begin to be seen for at least 6 years.

So, his 12 million job promise from this plan, could not possibly be attained within his first term meaning his revenue neutral tax plan would also not be achieved.

There just isn't enough meat on the bone to actually assess exactly what the impact of Romney's economic proposal is.

Yes, it was a very nice try, but given that anyone with a spreadsheet and a limited set of assumptions can make the outcome be whatever is desired, I don't hold much stock in these types of reports from either partisan or non partisan sources. There is just too many assumptions left out and a decided lack of understanding of how the existing assumptions actually contribute to the growth, revenue, expense projection when implemented in tandem. Most certainly the timeline of implementation and effect is not considered in any way.

At least he's now Floating a deduction cap balloon to see how it plays.
Of course he's gonna have to get rid of almost all of them to pay for his Cuts.

Romney’s budget would require a 40% cut to everything but Medicare, Social Security, and defense

Jonsa said:

Everyone is in agreement its the loopholes that make the tax code so infernally complex and need to be revised.

the issue on the other hand is what loopholes should be closed and how much can that effectively offset Romney's proposed tax cuts.

Seems that without also increasing taxes on capital gains, dividends, estates over $5million to name but a few and also eliminate the farce of carried interest, if for nothing else than fairness.

But, it seems that romney et.al. aren't going to tell anyone what exactly is the plan.

Click to expand...

Actually, Romney did tell us his plan.
The plan is to work with Congress to come up with a workable tax code that is, as much as possible, revenue neutral and more fair than the current code.

And, that's a good plan, if Congress will actually begin to function as a body interested in solving the nation's problems.

Which is a big if, but it's still better than a presidential candidate telling us what precise legislation he plans to pass, like so many of them do, when they count on the populace not to understand how the Constitution and the balance of powers really work.