E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe general election is shaping up to be a fight over the middle class. Both President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the GOP frontrunner, have continuously argued in speeches that their policies would most help the middle class.
But Romney’s argument took a hit last night, undercut by a detailed analysis by nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that showed Romney’s plan focuses tax cuts on the rich, while cutting taxes marginally for the middle class. It also would effectively raise taxes on those making less than $40,000 a year, the analysis found, when tax cuts put in place by Obama would be allowed to expire.
Send in your questions for Sunday's NBC News-Facebook debate on Meet the Press
"If I'm going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that's the middle class," Romney said at an Oct. 11 debate. “"I'm not worried about rich people. They are doing just fine. The very poor have a safety net; they're taken care of. But the people in the middle, the hard-working Americans, are the people who need a break. And that is why I focused my tax cut right there."
On Oct. 5, he said the middle class was a victim of “friendly fire” from Obama, who contends he is a “warrior for the middle class.” “If that's the case, I think there has been a severe case of friendly fire,” Romney said. “Because he has not done what the middle class of America needs to have a prosperous and bright future. In fact almost everything he did has hurt the middle class."
But those are increasingly difficult arguments to make when, under Romney’s plan, those making more than $1 million a year would see a tax cut of about $146,000, a 6.9 perent change in after-tax income, while those making between $50,000 and $75,000 would see just an average tax cut of about $250, just a 3.3 percent change, according to the center’s analysis.
In fact, not only is the amount of after-tax income greater the higher the income level, but the percent change also increases the more money someone makes.
The Romney campaign takes issue with the analysis, especially considering these assumptions in the center’s analysis: “TPC’s analysis measures the change in tax liabilities against two alternative baselines: current law, which assumes that the 2001-10 tax cuts all expire in 2013 as scheduled, and current policy, which assumes that the 2011 law is permanent (except for the one-year payroll tax cut and temporary investment incentives). Compared with the current law baseline, the Romney plan would cut taxes for about three-fourths of taxpayers by an average of more than $4,700. In contrast, compared with current policy, about 13 percent of tax units would see their 2015 taxes go up an average of more than $900 while 42 percent would get tax cuts averaging nearly $2,900.”
Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in an email: “Mitt Romney has not proposed raising taxes. In fact, he laid out a blueprint for governing that includes dramatic spending cuts to reduce the deficit and pro-growth tax policies that permanently extend the Bush tax cuts, dramatically cut the corporate tax rate to create jobs, and deliver real tax relief to middle-income taxpayers. President Obama has raised taxes 19 times, stunting our economic growth and leading us further down the path toward a European-style entitlement society.”
Here’s how the numbers break down from the Tax Policy Center’s table:
Less than $10,000: $112 increase
$10,000-$20,000: $191 increase
$20,000-$30,000: $126 increase
$30,000-$40,000: $14 increase
$40,000-$50,000: $27 cut
$50,000-$75,000: $249 cut
$100,000-$200,000: $1,146 cut
$200,000-$500,000: $5,195 cut
$500,000-$1 million: $19,853
$1 million or more: $145,568
Leave a Comment:
No s##t, Sherlock. Wealthy + benefit + tax plan = republicans goal!
No s##t, Sherlock. Wealthy + benefit + tax plan = republicans goal!
The question the article raises in my mind is; Did Romney knowing lie about his plan, or did Romney put forward a plan that was poorly though out?
Personally, I don't like either answer.
Don't forget that corporations vote with money, since the Supreme Court has finally decided that democracy is measured in money, not individuals. Romney won that "vote" by a landslide and is a cash cow for the Republican Party. It is an illusion that the Republican rank and file has choices in the matter. Voters will get the candidate that Wall Street bought and presented, Mitt Romney, Republicandroid 1.0.
I find it funny when the lower class pays zero federal taxes that, literally, ANY INCREASE to that number ( which is 0 ) is considered "raising taxes" and people wail in protest. Fair and balanced. You can spare me the whole "but they pay state tax" argument as well, that one just makes you look silly.
This shouldn't be an issue until they make everyone pay taxes. How is it that the 53% have to pay for everything? The 47% that don't pay taxes is BS. Pretty soon it will be 53% don't pay taxes and 47% do. We are going in the wrong direction. You can't keep taking money from the people that go out and work to give to those that don't. It is socialism and it DOES NOT WORK.
Romney's proposal addresses your concern. On top of the Bush tax cuts, the rich will get additional tax cuts.
The only time I was part of the 47% that don't pay taxes was when I was going to college and earning less than $10k a year working in a kitchen. You try making that much money and see how much you have left to pay taxes.
What is the percentage of people that make a LIVABLE WAGE that don't pay taxes? My guess is that number is significantly less than 47%.
Obama's no saint, but any of these GOP candidates thus far (With maybe the exception of Ron Paul) are going to pull the rug out from most of us.
Unless they can do better than the current picks, people will re-elect Obama out of FEAR if nothing else! I know I will.
Obama will pull the dirt out from under us because only party memebers will get luxuries like rugs.
Tea Party thinking....
"Don't confuse me with the facts, I know I'm right"
Says the man with a fictional cartoon character of a tasmanian devil as his representation of himself when posting something he deems as credible.
The Tea Party is as good as dead. Wall Street has spoken. Investors nearly blew their lids as the debt ceiling was held hostage by people who had no idea what they were playing with.
Tea Party ideology will win easily the Political Award for Fiction and the Green Weenie Award for Delusional Ignorance. Ask Michelle Bachman about D-Day, when George Washington crossed the English Channel in an open row boat and defeated the Spanish Armada.
RIPReagan
Are all right wingers without imagination fixated on thier narrow conservative locked in and set views of 100 years ago?
The only "fiction" here is that Romney's plan will help the middle class. If you can't seperate a cartoon character from reality well .... like I said no imagination.
My imagination has nothing to do with determining your credibility.
Look, hard work should be rewarded, and the wealthy have worked hard and will continue to work hard to make sure they stay that way. Many of the wealthy also worked hard to pick the right set of parents because it would be an impossibly Herculean labor to inherit a worthwhile amount money from poor parents.
Pay attention to all the postings about making sure the job creators can continue to create jobs. If workers really wanted to work, they wouldn't mind an increase in their payroll taxes to help incentivize our misunderstood job creators who only want some concrete token of our appreciation!
In ten years of tax cuts the wealthy created more wealth and unemployment set a modern record. Republicans believe what they believe, not what happens. It is also hard to not vote for the interests of the person holding your re-election scholarship. We have the worst congress money can buy.
We have been trickled down on, alright.
The most often heard Republican response when the numbers are crunched and their policies are exposed as damaging to the middle class and beneficial to the elite:
"It's the Liberal media reporting on the findings of a left-leaning organization"
It's easier than admitting you've been duped and brainwashed for all these years, ain't it Bob? Math, however, is the universal language. Numbers can't lean far to the left OR right before they become outright lies and can be revealed as such. My guess is you think that anything that is reported that shows the real agenda of the Republican party must come from the "Liberal media".
I would have to agree with some of the statements above. If the Republicans weren't so good at fear-mongering, lying, and misleading people with social issues such as abortion, gun control, etc, it would be hard for them to win an election in any part of the country. Obama has been president for 3 years and no one has come to take my guns. Healthcare was signed into law nearly 2 years ago and still, no "death panels" have killed my grandparents. Truth told, this muslim, non-citizen of a president has made such a disgrace of the presidency before his, those that supported Bush and his ideas have no better ammo than to come up with junk like this.
This has got to be the least surprising headline of the entire campaign so far. Romney is a typical GOP pig out to help out no one other than his rich cronies. Of course he'll win the nomination. Sh*t like him always floats.
And if your a progressive you just let the party do the thinking for you and try to remember what they told you to say. Don't confuse liberal propaganda with facts either. Non-partisan my elbow. Besides, all Obama's done is extend the Bush tax cuts. He must be a real fan of GW.
Who's dumber, the snake-oil salesman or the people he cons?
DP, let's not re-write history, GOP congress refused to continue working, even to ratify a nuclear arms treaty, until Obama caved in on extending tax cuts for the rich.
The uninformed might believe you but not the informed.
Mark Thomas,
I don't know how many times you'll have to remind people like DP about why the Bush tax cuts are still in place but I can tell you....it's getting pretty annoying!
"Wealthy would benefit most from Romney plan"..............??
It seems to me that unless the tax system is reformed ( what Repubs want to do) , the GE's of the world will get away with paying NO TAXES..................Obama's buddy = GE= Jeff Immelt = paid NO TAXES.
Leona, not likely it was democrats who put that little freebie into the tax code for GE, but in any case it certainly wasn't Obama.
Mark,
same thing.
Obama = Democrat
why are you slitting hairs??
Becasue GE didn't get a tax break because he was Obama's "buddy", they got a tax break becasue it was in the tax code.
now do you understand?
It appears to me that the banksters and wall street have fared very well on Obamas watch! The rich have certainly gotten richer. And those who live on capital gains instead of earned income have certainly fared well!
Leona + SSmike,
Listen...I know it's hard for the both of you. But you have to come to grip with reality. SSMike...Obama has been calling for the end of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy since coming into office and they would have been eliminated if it weren't for Republicans threatening to freeze unemployment benefits for the millions out of work. Thats a fact. Leona...many corporations pay no taxes...but who advocates that they continue to pay zero or that tax rates should be lowered? Republicans! Face you two...the very party you represent represents the upper citizens of our nation. It is painfully obvious. To argue otherwise is insane....The Republican party continues to fight for deregulation (even though deregulation led to our fiscal crisis), lower corporate taxes, to keep the top rates low or lower, and would rather find savings to do all mentioned by curbing benefits for those who have the least.
Repubs want to reform the tax code....lower corporate rates and do away with the loopholes.
It's Obama's re election campaign slogan "the Repubs are the party of no". Obama wants the Repubs to look bad but he wouldn't ever sit down with them and work out a new tax code . That would take away Obama's campaign slogan.....
While we are talking about "the Party of No".....Harry Reid heads up the Senate of No". He won't bring Repub bills (15+) up for a vote.
I say Reid has to go and he should take Obama, Pelosi & Biden with him. ( The liberals of OZ..........Lion, Tin Man,Dorothy & Scarecrow).
"Obama wants the Repubs to look bad"...hmm...I think that works both ways don't you think?
Leona,
It is very apparent that you like to blame one team for everything without looking at your own. Listen, I have plenty of problems with Obama. I'm a liberal and there are things that I down right don't like about his presidency and the Democratic party. They are no saints. Obama has taken a lot of corporate money just like the rest of congress and I think that confines them in many ways.
However, the Republican party wants to reform the tax code so that it misproportionately benefits the wealthy (see Bush tax cuts). They have spent Obama's term defending the Bush tax cuts which have only helped to increase our nations debt and widen the income gap between the rich and poor.
TO: LEONA-2986819 who wrote:
Republicans haven't worked since November 2008, and the only thing they have done is stalled the Recovery as much as they possibly could to try to make President Obama look bad, but it back fired on Republicans.
President Obama didn't write: "the Repubs are the party of no", the Repubs wrote that one themselves.
Vipp,
With all due respect to your opinion.........how does lowering the corporate tax rate and doing away with loopholes help the "rich"??
Right now, the "rich" are the ones NOT paying the proper amount of taxes because they use all the loopholes.
As far as the "poor" go, they don't pay taxes anyway. As I understand it, only 53% of Americans pay taxes.
Surprise, suprise.
Not that I was ever considering Romney, but just a nail in the coffin.
Don't forget that corporations vote with money, since the Supreme Court has finally decided that democracy is measured in money, not individuals. Romney won that "vote" by a landslide and is a cash cow for the Republican Party. It is an illusion that the Republican rank and file has choices in the matter. Voters will get the candidate that Wall Street bought and presented, Mitt Romney, Republicandroid 1.0.
Romney's net worth is $250,000,000.00 dollars, but is actually worth zero in integrity and conviction and worthwhile to only the top 1%. He is actually among the top 0.001% when it comes to wealth. That apparently means that he is entitled to be president of the United States as an opportunity for immortality in the historical record and as a rich man's hobby.
Probably among the richest, if not the richest, people to ever run for presidency.
@Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
"Of course they would - they always take care of their own!"
You mean like the Democrats taking the money of the 53% that pay taxes and given it to the 47% that don't.
When will you start asking when the 47% are going to pay taxes instead of trying to get the people that do to pay more?
The 47% do pay taxes...sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc.
But.. but they need that tax cut to create jobs!
Think of it:
That $150k could pay for 7 babysitters, dogwalkers, lawnmowers, car washers...
PeteMT, most of the rich are paying NO taxes right now and are receiving multi-million dollar refund checks none the less.
I think they should NOT be receiving any refund checks at all, UNLESS THEY ARE HIRING! But why hire if they can get the employees they have to work harder for less money because everybody is too afraid right now to take any chance on being out of a job and not being able to get another one.
AG: yes, yes, I know that. Did you somehow miss the sarcasm in my post?
:-)
Typical GOP scumbag -need I say more ?
What did you expect. The rich are always stuffing themselves with the the meager assets of middle America. Its gluttony.
When a rich person keeps more of what he/she has earned, not a single dime is taken from another. If we are all are Americans, then we all should contribute to the support of government.
It isn't gluttony to want to keep what one earns or has. It is envy, however, to want for oneself what another has earned or has.
So? The wealth originated from work. In this country, no one has to work for someone if they don't freely choose to do so. If one is feeling "exploited," then one can choose to work somewhere else. What you are advocating is an affront to personal property rights and individual freedom.
thirty years of trickle down and middle class wages haven't gone up.....when do you bozo's figure out that it ain't rain that the rich are trickling down on you....supply side is bull@!$%# and even stockman the inventor for reagan has said as much....it was a gimick....do you guys want to dispute the guy that invented trickle down econ/supply side.... really i realize you may live in a different world but to deny supply side econ as anything but rules for the rich makes yo from a different solar system.. this is the truth it hasn't worked for the middle class because it WASN'T for the middle class....duh...
FLAT TAX steve forbes invention 90% of republican economist say it's a joke....and 100% of democratic economist....but you guys pulled that one out for cain perry etc etc etc,,,,oh shinny...
You have to just laugh at the myths put out about the rich:
1. They work hard, that is why they're rich. (implying if you don't make much, you don't work hard).
2. Give them more money and they use that to create jobs.
3. Give them more money and they will proportionately spend more...this spending will trickle down to those who need it because they don't work hard enough.
All Republican voters making less than $500,000 / yr need to take an econ course.
you say "give them more money"
It's their money, first of all. The debate is about how much the govt. should be allowed to "steal" ( rich and middle class alike) from working people. The govt. takes our money and then decides how to use / lose it. ( i.e. Solyndra and other "money pits")
I make 25k a year and I'm beyond proud of my country, and my affiliation. I get called tea bagger, moron, nazi, crazy christian, all of this just for being fiscally conservative.
I'm probably struggling more than you so called 99'ers.
I can proudly say I don't take one fricking handout and I EARNED everything I have.
It is for these reasons my beliefs are strengthened, because the only counter argument I hear in response to most of my findings is a form of name calling or some unfounded, regurgitated, over-used sound byte that nobody can provide actual information on.
A poor person never gave me a job so objectively speaking, and realistically speaking, only someone with capital is going to be able to hire me.
I am struggling with the concept that rich people are these evil scumbags. PEOPLE IN GENERAL ARE EVIL SCUMBAGS rich and poor alike. Until you can remove immorality and corruption from human nature youre never going to win that argument or totally be rid of injustices, no matter what the tax code. There will always be some a*hole abusing the system, thats how it works. Thats why true change has to come from within and with eachother doing the right thing. (Nearly impossible, I know, but I can hope)
So that leaves your argument right there. You cant change human nature, no matter how much you change the tax system. All we can do is hope people someday do the right thing. , and perhaps give them incentives to do the right thing.
you can't be a fiscal conservatives if you voted for the same republicans that okay 6 years of budget deficets that the bush bush house and bush senate okay for the year 2001 to 2008....you're who you voted for big spending republicans and not to mention the fact that your party also particpated in the 60 years of financial mismanagement we call the 20 century....two out of 60 years that president both republican and dem signed from congresses which both controlled dem and rep. you fiscal conservatives are like guys that give themselves nicknames....phoney.....your big spending republicans aka the bush years you voted for em you're one of them.....
A little naive assuming I voted for Bush, yea? What am I thinking expecting anything different.
I'm trying to interpret what the hell it is youre saying but you lost me at bush bush house and bush senate. If memory serves me I believe you are misinformed..Per the US Constitution, "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."
Democrats controlled the House from 1955 through 1994, leaving the federal debt held by the public at 49.2% of GDP. Republicans then controlled the House from 1995 through 2006 and left it at 36.5% of GDP — below the level left by Democrat Congresses.
Have a wonderful weekend Marc.
Won't let me post a link directly.. so ..... http :// useconomy.about.com/od/economicindicators/a/GDP-statistics.htm
In other news, sky is blue and water is wet.
Isn't that exactly why Romney dreams of being POTUS? So that he can make himself richer, as well as the rest of the Top 1% who will all be his new best friends, and they can live happily ever after, all floating their yachts together in the same St. Tropez harbor.
The rest of us would be screwed.
Obama / Biden 2012
you go AG
You do realize Obama / Biden / Dems are screwing even more?
how is that sonman.