E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mitt Romney promised this past weekend that the wealthy would “still pay the same share of the tax burden they’re paying now” and that he’s “not looking for a tax cut for the very wealthiest.” And: “I'm not looking to reduce the burden paid by the wealthiest.”
He added, “I’m looking to bring tax rates down for everyone.”
That’s what he said on CBS’s Face the Nation, despite the Tax Policy Center’s analysis earlier this year that showed that those making more than $1 million a year would get a $146,000 a year cut from Romney’s plan (by lowering the top rate to 26.6%) – and that the poor would pay more than it currently does (because the base would be broadened).
(Here's the Tax Policy Center's full table laying it out.)
So what’s changed? Nothing, says Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, who conducted the original analysis.
The key, Williams says, is Romney’s language. And Romney’s very careful here to say, “pay the same share of the tax burden.”
That means that if his plan cuts the rate for the wealthy, which it does, then he has to make that up with which “tax preferences that he’d get rid of,” Williams said. In other words, the only way the wealthiest would pay the same share is if Romney closes unspecified tax loopholes. And that is where Romney has been vague.
Though he promises to perhaps get rid of certain deductions, he has yet to specify which. When Face the Nation moderator Bob Schieffer pressed Romney, he declined to say what he would do.
“Well, we'll go through that process with Congress,” he said, adding he’d consider certain deductions and exemptions.
Asked what his ideas are now, Romney again cited Simpson-Bowles, the bipartisan commission formed by the president to find a solution that would reduce the nation’s debt and deficits. But he would only say “deductions and exemptions,” and didn’t specify which.
In fact, it would likely be very difficult for Romney to find the deductions necessary to keep the wealthy from paying the same share, because, as Williams points out, there aren’t many “deductions or exemptions” that have an outsized benefit for the rich outside of capital gains, dividends, and exclusions for municipal bond interest.
Things like state and local tax deductions and the popular mortgage-interest deduction discussed in Simpson-Bowles, Williams said, would most benefit the middle- to upper-middle class.
Romney has already said he would not raise the capital gains tax; he would keep it at the current rate of 15 percent for those making more than $200,000 a year. So that’s one lever eliminated to make up the difference.
He has said he would at least “consider taxing some ‘carried interest’ at regular income tax rates,” the New York Times wrote. But it’s not at all clear if he would actually do that, something the private-equity and hedge-fund world would strongly oppose.
“It is really hard to maintain the distribution, maintain the same share of taxes that they are paying now,” Williams said of the wealthy under Romney’s plan.
He also points out that Romney would “extend the Bush tax cuts, but kill the Obama tax cuts,” like the earned-income tax credit expansion, child-care credits, educational tax credits, making them “less generous, less refundable.” And: “The people hit by that almost exclusively are not the rich at all.”
Obama, by contrast, has promised to raise taxes on the rich. “Every budget,” Williams noted, Obama “said he’s going to raise taxes on rich.”
But there wouldn’t be enough revenue generated from the so-called Buffet Rule -- which would tax capital gains, as if it were regular wages – or eliminating oil and gas subsidies, popular with Capitol Hill Democrats, to make a big dent in the nation’s debt and deficits.
So, the choice is: A vague plan from Romney that, of what’s known so far, disproportionately benefits the wealthy and isn’t at all clear that it would raise enough revenue to offset its cost; or Obama’s, which targets the rich, but also would do little to close the nation’s deficits.
Leave a Comment:
Flip Flop Mitt being vague?
Say it ain't so...
that a way mittens...by the way how does it feel to have the Koch brothers heads up your butt????
Hey,,, 'member when the teapublicans told us that massive tax cuts for millionaires, and billionaires would spur employment demand??
Yeah, I know.... How silly...
Now they're at it again !! LOL!!
It is amazing that they keep hawking the same failed policies and some morons actually believe them.
Do the wealthy EVER pay their fair share?
Oh yeah, way back in the 50's when the higher end tax rate was around 65%.
The good ole days...
Dionysus
like most leftists you have a strange notion of fair.
In 1980 when the top marginal rate was 70%, the top 1% paid 19.6% of the income taxes.
In 2007 after fully implementing the Bush Tax Cuts, the top 1% paid 39% of the income taxes
By what criteria is 40% of all income taxes collected not more than fair. In fact it is criminal and unconstitutional according to the founders.
"A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities." James Madison 1792 letter on taxation
In 2009, Tax Foundation economists did such a "fiscal accounting" to see how much families at different income levels received in all government spending benefits relative to how much they pay in all federal taxes.
We found that federal tax and spending policies are already very progressive and redistributive. As the charts below indicate, the bottom 60 percent of families - those earning under about $85,000 in 2010, receive more in total spending benefits from government than they pay in all taxes combined. In other words, the benefits they receive from government - from education and roads to national defense and welfare - greatly exceed all the federal taxes they pay - from income and payroll taxes to gasoline and corporate income taxes.
Indeed, the lowest-income Americans paid less than $1,700 in total taxes, but received $17,617 in spending benefits. In other words, they received more than $10 in spending benefits for every $1 they paid in taxes of any kind. Remarkably, middle-income families - whom Obama says government does not do enough for - got $1.15 in spending benefits for every $1 they pay in taxes.
By contrast, the top 40 percent of families pay far more in taxes of all kinds than they receive back from government in benefits. For example, families earning between roughly $86,000 and $110,000 paid an average of $23,289 in total taxes, but received $22,938 in benefits - equal to about 0.98 cents on the dollar. The wealthiest families, those earning over $712,000, paid more than $660,000 in taxes but received $283,000 in spending benefits - equal to about 0.43 cents on the dollar.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27917.html
Larryy: 98 cents on the dollar and 43 cents on the dollar; this should be reversed for these two categories/income tables. That is the problem.
So Romney will keep the tax "share" of the wealthy the same, all the while tap-dancing around which loopholes he would close? Surprise, surprise, surprise. A Greedy One Percenter working for benefits for other Greedy One Percenters, who neither need nor deserve breaks, all the while sticking it to the middle and working classes? Color me shocked! This is what the Republicans have been doing all along. It was their trickle-down, deregulating, all for the rich and to Hades with everyone else policies that got us in this mess to begin with. Their solution, and Willard's, is to offer up more of the same. Evidently, they are convinced the rest of us are such sheep we will go along with it.
Make absolutely no mistake, Romney is the filthy richees bitch, and that includes China and the middle east. He already has his pants down, with a bucked of KY jelly in one hand and the passwords to his overseas bank acccounts in the other. Bush #3 or Reagan #2 but worse. Third world status here we come.
Rich will never pay taxes, they pay campaign contribution. They don't pay state taxes either, they "homes" are in tax free states.
Function of Congress is checks and balances for any law, check that there are enough loopholes for the rich, balance it for the rich who gave us campaign contribution. Read, "In your face IRS: zero taxes", ISBN 978-0-9857370-0-9. Middle class should also "structure" their income, I like some of the ideas given in the book.
meow, you are a misinformed idiot. Try getting the facts right .
Is there any chance that society's professional welfare crowd might have to pay a few bucks in income taxes?
No,taxed...you will remain paying no taxes
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
It's all BS by both parties. Let's go with a flat tax - no credits, no deductions no nothing. It's all about choice. Should I get deductions and credits because I choose to have kids, a house mortgage? Why punish a single, renting, childless person by making them pay at a higher tax rate.
The first $20K of income should be tax free for corporations and individuals. Tax everyone the same after that. Then we don't need these argruments back and forth over who pays what and how much. No whining from the businesses please. We are the job creators but why should I do it if I didn't get any special treatment. We need special incentives so we can create jobs. HA! Let me clue you all in - people will always create businesses and jobs because that's how to make money. People who work for them can feel comfortable they pay the same tax rate. If they want to make more well then earn it but not because of special breaks. and so on. Flat tax, flat tax, flat tax.
So Larry, how we get our country out of the hole is to 'stimulate' the economy by giving the top 1% more tax breaks. This will encourage businesses and business owners to create more jobs here in the U.S. Because those tax 'incentives' would even the divide created by the incredibly low wages found in China, India and the rest of Asia. It is clearly welfare, social security and illegal immigration that has driven our country into the hole, right? Now you need to do a little research here old wise one. How much of our debt and taxes go to welfare, social security and the costs of illegal immigration? In many respects, I will likely agree with your opinion on both welfare and illegal immigration, however, they are small fish in the pond when it comes to our country's debt. Do you think by improving the math and science scores here in the US would bring back jobs by the tens of thousands that were lost overseas? Not everyone is blessed with your obvious self-endowed brilliance to make the climb up to Wall Street or to ownership of a business. Most of those individuals are people that would have gladly filled one of those jobs that have long since been lost to the 8 year-olds in India and China. If we are going to get out of debt, which as you know, was of no concern to Reagan, with whom I am sure you hold the highest regard, it will take compromise. Raising taxes on those who can and lowering them for those who cannot, stream-lining welfare back to a back to work programs of yester year, getting real tough on immigration, evening the playing field in regards to free-trade, such as raising the taxes on imports enormously. Benefits to corporations who keep both their business, their employ, and their money here on US soil. Finally, yanking our politicians heads out of big oil's and big China's arse. By and by, what was the over-all tax rates on the top 1% and .01% during the 2-3 decades of greatest prosperity and GDP growth here in the US? What were the tax rates on imports at that time. What was the distribution in total wealth like at that time? Now go back to school there young Madison, you have work to do.
Tom
You are in leftist spin. Reagan deplored the Federal Debt and deficit
And tax receipts as a percentage of GDP were the highest under Reagan of any president. They were even higher under George Bush than under Eisenhower
Individual Income Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP were higher in the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush years than during the 90% top marginal rate years of Eisenhower per the White House historic tables
Tax Revenues as % of GDP
Eisenhower=17.52
Reagan 18.18
GW Bush 17.63
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
In 1980 the top 1% with a top marginal rate of 70% paid 19.6% of the income taxes. By 1988 with the Reagan tax cuts they paid 27% of the income taxes
by 2007 with the Bush taxcuts the top 1% paid 39% of the income taxes
The rest of your post is just the usual maxist nonsense
We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.
Ronald Reagan Address to National Association of Realtors, March 28, 1982
As we examined America's economic illness, we isolated a number of contributing factors. Our Federal Government has grown explosively in a very short period of time. We found that there had grown up a maze of stifling regulations, which began to crush initiative and deaden the dynamic industrial innovation which brought us to where we are. We saw unbelievable deficits -- this year alone reaching up to nearly $80 billion, including off-budget items. And we found that these deficits got in no one's way, because the Government found it easy to fuel inflation by printing more money just to make up the difference.
The American taxing structure, the purpose of which was to serve the people, began instead to serve the insatiable appetite of government. If you will forgive me, you know someone has once likened government to a baby. It is an alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. [Laughter] But our citizens were being thrown into higher tax brackets for simply trying to keep pace with inflation. In just the last 5 years, Federal personal taxes for the average American household have increased 58 percent. The results: crippling inflation, interest rates which went above 20 percent, a national debt approaching a trillion dollars, nearly 8 million people out of work, and a steady 3-year decline in productivity.
First, we're taking near revolutionary steps to cut back the growth in Federal spending in the United States. We're proposing that instead of having our national budget grow at the
unacceptable rate of 14 percent per year, it should rise at a more sensible 6 percent. This enables us to maintain the kind of growth we need to protect those in our society who are truly dependent on government services. Just yesterday, I submitted our proposed budget for the coming year -- and then immediately crossed the border. [Laughter] With extraordinary effort, we've isolated some 83 items for major savings and hundreds more for smaller savings, which together amount to $48.6 billion in the coming fiscal year.
Our second proposal is a 10-percent cut across the board every year for 3 years in the tax rates for all individual income tax payers, making a total cut in tax rates of 30 percent. This will leave our taxpayers with $500 billion more in their pockets over the next 5 years and create dramatic new incentives to boost productivity and fight inflation. When these personal cuts are combined with tax cuts to provide our business and industry with new capital for innovation and growth, we will be creating millions of new jobs, many of them ultimately on your side of the border.
Ronald Reagan speech before Joint Session of Canadian Parliament March 11, 1981
You have heard, no doubt, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Interestingly enough, our government's own numbers show that many of the poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor .. there's an explanation -- a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.
Our tax code is an income redistribution scam that has allowed 00.006% to hoard the nation’s wealth at the expense of 99.994% of a declining middle class, working poor, totally destitute, and younger generation that is trying to get a start from under a huge pile of educational debt.
The system works to the 00.006% in two ways. ( One) via loopholes and low tax rate they pay less on their income than the middle and working class and (two) they make off with what is national debt to everyone else by the need to barrow from the shortfall in taxes and make money off of the money on interest that is debt. The huge amount of debt run up during the past 30 years did not evaporate or go to those whose income has declined or been held constant---the debt went into the pockets of the 00.006% like Mitt Romney.
And Mitt likes it and wants to run what is left into the pockets of his fellow hoarder by claiming they create jobs which they have not and are not going to when they can continue to rake and take. While income has been shifted to the top in our consumer economy jobs have decreased as money has been drained from the purchasing power of the many by this Republican social engineering.
They wont pay under democrats any quicker than they will through the republicans.. Get over it, its not going to happen... Being an internet warrior surely wont lead to any resolution either.
This real simple the man (Mitt-flip) took a 77,000 tx deduction on his horse and that's just one of his horses. The latest polls show the president with a double digit lead 13 pts, now Mitt-flip has to dis-close what he really thinks and what his actual plans are. Not ready for prime-time should of never left Fixed News coming on Face The Nation he was exposed. Rubio had enough sence to get off the Titanic!!
"So, the choice is: A vague plan from Romney that, of what’s known so far, disproportionately benefits the wealthy and isn’t at all clear that it would raise enough revenue to offset its cost; or Obama’s, which targets the rich, but also would do little to close the nation’s deficits."
Hmmm. Since I do not fear that the 1% would suffer too badly having to pay more into a system that has made them rich, I think I will choose Obama. When congress can pull it's head out of Norquist's arse, maybe they will take a balanced approach with the debt. Here's hoping!
Mitt Romney's recent ad:
"Can you believe it? He wants MORE police, MORE firemen, MORE teachers! Didn't
he get the message?"
Scenario #1
911: What is your emergency, please?
Caller: I just heard gunshots outside!
911: The policeman's next appointment will be Tuesday at 10am
Scenario #2
911: What is your emergency, please?
Caller: My house and garage are engulfed in flames!
911: We will have the fireman at your home within 72 hours
Scenario #3
Child: Daddy, there are 30 students and only 1 teacher in my class
Dad: Wait until Romney is President, you will have 88 students, 1 teacher
35 textbooks, and 40 desks.
Careful Say what, you are using critical thinking in your narratives and conservatives cringe when open minded people exercise the reality testing of their short-cited thinking.
no
I really doubt that the biased MSNBC would slant towards honesty. They would provoke incendiary, divisory comments that attack the messenger, not the message...we can't afford this system, it has to stop. The wealthy are paying far more than the do nothings and no good for nothings and the "I'm entitled to MY disability" groups. Get a grip, the well to do pay far more than the make nothing, live off of hard working citizens group.
Willard wants another $5 trillion tax cut. No mention of how to pay for it. The last thing we need is more debt.
No more debt. Slash size(cost) of government. Stop breeding lifelong dependents on welfare. No more aliens. American jobs for Americans.
If he becomes president, the poor will starve to death.
Right Rick, how can you make such an ignorant statement??
Should never, ever have started creating dummies on welfare just to vote demo. Most will need to be supported all their lives.
School dropouts, thieves, support in prison. Terrible thing.
I'm voting for the person that is working to make my life better. I'm a college student that works full time. I can barely afford rent and groceries but w/o a degree there is no hope for a better paying job. If republicans would stop focusing on what would make the rich richer and what rights they can steal from the citizens of their country on any given day and work to help people who need it then maybe I'd vote for them. But that's not happening.
Equal pay for everyone. Women who do the same work as other women should be paid the same. Women who do the same work as men should be paid the same as the men. Men who do the same work as other men should be paid the same. Men who do the same work as women should be paid the same as women. There should be no difference in pay for the same work for different employers. One pay scale for all employees doing the same work. How can this be accomplished? Simple. A federal government mandated and enforced pay scale for each kind of work (job); much like the federal civil service pay scale. Would that move the U.S. to a communist system? Why not; isn't that the end objective? To each according to his/her needs; from each according to his/her contribution; that's fair. Vote for Obama.
Ludicrous, Wealthy pay almost all the taxes. No reason for them to pay for the waste in this administration. I'm almost daily amazed at what taxes are wasted on, now, illegal aliens nobody wants to make another wasteful special interest group for the demorats.
The wealthy will always pay more taxes. They spend more on taxable goods and services. As far as income tax , I do not know because of the tax loopholes. You have to think of the why of tax loopholes and tax breaks. I believe it is the goverments way to controle its citizens. A example is a 401k retirement fund. A tax deferment to motive people to save for retirement. Cities will not tax the property of business for the first few years as bribe for them to move or stay there. Thank God for the wealthy and capitalism.
Oooooopppppp's he did it again. Just like before.