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:
ROMNEY & RYAN wants to create a third world country .Where the haves control everything.When food stamps are cut out, supermarkets will lay off workers,some stores will fold. When medicaid and medicare is eliminated,
medical personel will be laid off. Some hospitals and clinics will fold.Remedy: Outlaw the minimal wage laws. Only then will we have full employment. The GOP say let the employers pay what they want to pay.When get lots of $3 to $5 hour jobs most the companies will come back to THE USA.
If anyone is making us poorer it is this administration.
It is the Libertarian way of life. Each man unto his own...no sense of society, family nor village. More poor people, less middle class and all the money goes to the top 2%. Kind of like slave labor...or back to the privileged feudal society that existed before our time. The Republican Way!
Republican's Motto: All for ME and F*** You.
Nooooooooo! Mo Romney speaks in a lot of generalities and no specifics. He has been very reticent to show any thransparency in re: to his tax returns.
I can see why. Madame Romney has a dancing horsey, that the bi t ch does not even ride, and the Romneys declare a 77K$ income tax deduction.
If I could do such a thing ....I would too! However, Mo Romney is a straight out of the cave effing liar.
LTC Rattus, USA, ret.
And Obama gave us what info in 2008?
So many liberals demanding to see a complete budget from Romney. Strangely one is missing. Hey Mr. Reid, why are you not demanding a Romney budget too?
Is it a surprise to anyone that Mitt "Robber Baron" Romney has not laid out a clear plan for the economy? Bashing Obama and the Democrats instead.
Since when do Repugnican'ts and their conservative spawn care about the plight of the middle class? NEVER.
It's all smoke and mirrors folks.
Mo Romney has not said anything specific. He only states something to the effect that "he will have a plan upon Day One when he is 45th POTUS.
What can the patrician robber baron say? He cannot say anything.
That is a weak point that he has (among others) let's step up the whisper campaigns or incorporate this into them?
LTC Rattus, USA, ret.
smoke, mirrors, lies and millions in corporate funding. Welcome to the USCA...United States of Corporate America.
the wealthy already pay more than their fair share of taxes..........that being said, taxes on all those who pay them should be reduced with government spending being cut.......anyone who thinks there is no waste and fat in government is either deluded or naive.......obama is a liar, a distorter, and a divider....ROMNEY RULES IN NOVEMBER!
You wanna clean out some fat? Start with the defense contractors. Next, let's get rid of these politicians benefits and pensions.
And Romney hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell - unless Adelson and his cronies buy off all the electorates.
I'll roger that. GD defense contractors!
LTC Rattus, USA, ret.
OBAMA-BIDEN 2012
Our deficit is about 40 cents out of every dollar spent. Do you (or does anyone?) believe that there's that much waste in Government?
Every Republican candidate in recent memory has run against "waste and fraud" and promised to balance our budget by eliminating them. How many have actually done that?
In case you don't know, I'll give you a hint: none.
It's a phony issue, designed to deflect attention from the hard choices we have to make: and those will include more taxes.
Paddywack, you are wacked! Yes the rich pay more in dollars but not in percentage to income. When i have 25% of my retirement income disappear while they pay 15% in their income....something is wrong. Your 401K plan will be taxed at ordinary income rates while their stock options will be taxed at 15%. Everything is skewed for the rich and the middle class be damned.
And it is Romney who distorts, lies and is the deceiver!
Obama '12
I find it interesting that Republicans always accuse their opponents of all kinds of misdeeds that they themselves are guilty of.
Long as SOMEBODY pays some extra tax. I dont even care if its me. Just get the country back on track. The lower classes are WELL AWARE the wealthy loosers are going to lie cheat & steal their way out of paying anything extra. Both of the bushes were idiots. Who in their right mind would want to extend their tax cuts? Get rid of all that mess it will be alot easier on everybody. I dont even think Bush Jr could tie his own shoes!
Isn't anyone the least worried about: 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.”
The poor and middle class will never get any where with Mitt Romney.
The greastest economy was built on capitalism which brought more people out of poverty than any other system ever has or ever will. Now the poor are growing under the Progressives. When they become uncomfortable in their poverty they will do something about it.
Nice rewrite.
Near the sea:
Spoken like a person of privilege who has never been poor and knows nothing about it.
This election choice is like selecting a gear on your shifter.
You can throw it down and right into Reverse -- only to watch those beady eyed jackals Romney and Ryan drive you right off a cliff.
You can pop it up forward and left-center to First and slowly climb the hill we all know we need to climb!
Time will tell. But when you look at the facts, clearly Obama has done some good, and might have done much more — except for the transparently subversive, unpatriotic actions of extremists in Congress.
The tax base is out there, about $2.71T AGI is available every year in the top few percent or so. They can afford it. Yet who in their right mind would trust Willard he'll always Etch-a-Sketch his way into a position that plays shortsightedly for a vote.
It's hard to criticize the Romney tax plan, because he refuses to present any details, which is exactly what he also does about his job creation plan, his immigration plan, his debt reduction plan and, I'm sure, all those other plans he has that I've omitted.
Is there a pattern here? Is there a reason for this apparent serial evasion, this omitting of details? Could it be that Romney is afraid that any specifics might cost him some votes? Or could it be that he KNOWS they would? Or is it that he really has no plan?
all of the above with one addition, he is a liar.
What the romney is really afraid of is offending the RNC gurus like the Koch brothers and the extreme right base. The convention hasn't been held yet and they can still find a way of denying him the nomination. The rest of us know him for the useless lying pile of defication that he is and nothing he says will change our perception of him.
The Romney Campaign had to RUSH OUT and kill that Story about NOT vetting Marco. They won't to hold unto as many MINORITIES AS THEY CAN WHO they think by spreading the Lie that Marco is a Contender. I am here to tell them it will not work.
The Republicans know that in their TINY LITTLE HEARTS", there is no way Marco is going to be a VP Candidate. They have learned with the Last "AirHead" Palin of what a Disaster than would be. If I am wrong, I will toss my cookies.
Are the GOP/TEA vetting a Black Guy or Woman? Are Black votes no longer important to the Republicans?, even tough their African American HACKS think the Republicans can still siphon off a some of them because they are such MISGUIDED MINORITIES.
The GOP/TEA is becoming the Party of White Guys, mostly old. The few Minorities they have in their Big Tent are totally off to put up with all of the NONSENSE coming from the GOP/TEA. The Women who support them are TOTALLY MISLGUIDED with THE ONGOING WAR ON WOMEN by the GOP/TEA.
The party of old RICH white guys, with an awesomely powerful 24HR propaganda machine. Republicans can only win elections because: "You can fool enough of the people enough of the time."
No intelligence on this planet Scottie....Beam me up.
Obama'12
THINK PEOPLE THINK!!!!
This Worked!!
Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surpluses stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.
You can see what happened to President Clinton!! SHAFTED BY THE RICH AND FAMOUS!!
This is how Republicans got us in the ditch!!! What is your PROBLEM!!!! You don't remember?????
The first signs of impending trouble are the exploding budget deficits themselves. They began, of course, under the parlous economic stewardship of Ronald Reagan. Reagan cut the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans from 70% to 38%. He promised it would spur an orgy of investment and rocket the economy to new levels of production and prosperity. Instead, his supply side economics did the exact opposite. It produced the deepest recession since the Great Depression.
At the end of George W. Bush's Presidency the USA was losing 700,000 jobs a month!!!!!!!!!
YOU WANT MORE OF THE SAME!!!!
VOTE for ROMNEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sock it to me!!!!! I want more!!!!!!!!!! I haven't lost my Home yet!!!!!
Only half of the Clinton years story and where the surpluses came from
I'm just amazed at how many are giving Mitt a pass. The man will commit to NOTHING!!! I guess he's waiting for Norquist or the Koch brothers to tell him what his policies will be, until then, it's either crickets or the sound of him tap dancing around the issues.
Remember, all Norquist and the Koch's need is a President with enough fingers to hold a pen so he can sign the bills that a lobbiest/Tea Party-controlled Congress sends to him.
Can it be any more clear as to who Willard's real constituancy is? The wealthy.
Curent US National Spending 3.6 Trillion ( and change )
Current US Deficit 1.3 Trillion "
Current US Debt 15.8 Trillion +/-
Current US Interest 3.8 Trillion
Federal Tax revenue 2.3 Trillion
We owe more in interest than we're spending or get in taxes and this increased most significantly after we lost our AAA bond rating. This thanks to Boener et al for playing chicken with the last debt limit expansion.
Picking R. Glen Hubbard as his chief economic advisor wasn't smart. Hubbard was Bush The Unmentionable's first Director of the Domestic Economic Council, and an author of the Bush tax cuts in 2001.
Hubbard's the guy who went to Germany recently and "apologized" to the Germans for our President's suggestion that they ease up on the austerity model and practice a little Keynesian economics.
Right or wrong, Hubbard was out of line.
"Vague" is a great word to characterize Romney's plans for everything. He speaks in broad platitudes and essentially has no meat on the bones of anything he speaks about.
It would appear, after all these opportunities that Romney has had, that he would have something concrete to add to his sweeping pronouncements. I guess that vagueness gives him the most latitude to change his approach later and still say that its the same.
This is the same Romney that essentially has no earned income, all of his bucks coming from capital gains as many wealthy folks have learned to do. So, it takes money to make money and he does it well. No wonder he likes the tax system already in place for the wealthy.
To Quote former Texas Gov. Ann Richards who was speaking of President George H.W. Bush: "He was born with a silver foot in his mouth." And with respect to taxes, apparently Mitt Romney was born that way as well.
Mitt is kind of like Spanky is on this Vine. Spanky never actually puts something out there. He just waits until somebody posts something the he pops up and calls the poster names and talks about how he hates what was posted. Mitt does the same with President Obama. The President says something then Mitt pops up and says he would do the opposite and criticize the President. Nothing new, nothing original, just criticism.
"GOP, where original thought, humanity and innovation goes to die." That could be their new slogan. .
Are you sure they should replace: 'All for ME and F*** You.'?
who they supported on 7 years ago.. Remember Al Gore.. Born rich. And talk about out of touch.. Or maybe John Carrey.. Married Rich,, Also out of touch.. Least Romey gave away his inheritance and made his millions thru SMART LEGAL bussiness practices.
LES: Totally bogus my friend. Yes, there are many wealthy Liberals, both politicians and private citizens. The difference is they don't spend their entire lives whining about taxes as the GOP does. As for Willardo, nothing special there, the CLDS requires it's members to tithe 10% of their income. It merely goes with the territory.
FDR & JFK both came from very wealthy backgrounds and beyond that, FDR was very much, to the manner born. Aristocratic right down to his toes. However, these were people who empathized with the common man and their policies proved it. Willard is out for the uber rich, that's the only world this guy knows and what's more, HIS POLICIES PROOF THAT BEYOND A DOUBT.
The greedy rich have:
- Brought our nations financial system to it's knees by gambling 401Ks and mortgages.
and
- Bought 1/4 of our nation's voters and conned another 1/4.
The following is unbelievable:
- Somehow the greedy rich have convinced 1/4 of our nation that it wasn't the greedy rich that caused the 2008 financial crisis; but instead it was teachers and firefighters.
and convinced them so thoroughly that they will throw their neighbors (teachers, firefighters, and police officers) under the bus, in defense of the most rich and powerful people on earth (like they can't defend themselves... by why would they? when they can get puppets to do it for them?)
When 1/4 of voters side with the greedy rich (who have mastered the game as it is) WE ARE LOST.
The problem with the Romney tax plan is that our deficit would increase even faster than it is now.
Has anyone seen PMS-NBC's apology for doctoring the Romney "Wawa" report? I've only seen additional coverage... So, how do we trust anything? First the doctor the Zimmerman's account - making the liberal Hispanic look like a racist, and now they lie about Romney - how do we trust anything???
Fact, Andrea Mitchell covers the lie!!! If it's that bad at PMS-NBC, how can we trust any reports???
I don't!
How do you trust FOX?
Notice how the right jumps all over the Pres. but never spell out what they'd do different? When pressed you get vauge stuff like 'let the job creators loose' and cut gov't spending. When really pressed they start to admit little drips of truth, cut the 'freebies' to the 'freeloaders' and quit 'punishing' the successful.
You are the party of personal responsibility, so fess up. You are wedded to supply side economics and the trickle down theory. Both have been discredited both in theory and reality. Now, you want more of the same.
Newsflash: it is the working class that make this country go. Their demand is what fuels lthis economy. No demand, no need to produce, no production, no jobs. no jobs, no income, no income no demand. History has shown again and again when the middle class does well, everyone benefits.
You want deficiet reduction? Jobs for the middle class. More income, more spending, more spending more revenue from both business and workers.
To those who say that business will provide the jobs, I say where's the proof of that? When you layoff gov't workers and force states to do the same, you take wage earners and taxpayers out of the economy. When you layoff teachers, cops and firefighters you do the same. Their spending creates demand. That stimulates the economy and creates more revenue. Now I think the right knows this, but is so wedded to the idea of shrinking gov't to the point where Norquist says you can drown it in the bathtub, that they are willing to sacrifice our economy to do it. This in the hopes of creating a capitalistic utopia where unrestricted business showers us with plenty. Man, that right up there with the 72 virgins fantasy.
IRS reports over 36,000 persons making $200,000 or more paid no income taxes. Tax rates don't mean anything. Look at how many corporations pay no taxes. Tax rates are a straw man argument.
This election is a choice between two visions for the future of America: One vision is for continuation of the progressive vision of a balance between equality and freedom as the moral foundation of justice, and a more recent conservative vision of an entitlement due the wealthy and the equivalence of corporations to the rights and protections of natural persons under the Constitution.
The free market is a myth: if it isn't regulated by government to prevent fraud, it is regulated by the corporate oligarchy to prevent competition. Free means not having to go to jail for fraud and theft.
A progressive future is one in which government is a custodian of the public trust and advocates for justice; where justice is a balance between equality and freedom. Government as a custodian of the public trust means that everyone plays by the same rules and that everyone is equal before the law. Public trust means the rights of the people to preserve and protect the common property of the United States is not severable to the interests of privatization. Public trust means that a corporation has no rights except those given to it by law and does not have equal standing with a natural born person under the Constitution.
The conservative future is one of a hostile corporate takeover with privatization of government functions. The corporate takeover means that having wealth is an effective barrier to others participating in the process of government. It means that government would no longer serve the interests of the community but collaborate with the wealthy corporate owners to establish a separate set of laws that entitle them to preferential treatment while creating barriers to competition by eliminating opportunities for others.
This election is a moral choice between affiliation or aggression, empathy or egotism, service or selfishness, cooperation or competitiveness.
The tale of two visions is the difference between a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and a government run by a plutocracy of corporate power.
Well spoken, time to really look at what we want for our future. Our currently dysfunctional government of the corprate dollar and for the corprate dollar needs to end. We the people need to take back our government. Corporations are not people and should be excluded from the governing process.
Well done.
Another proof that the market is not free, is:
Government regulation of immigration has a tremendous effect on labor costs.
The constitution should be amended to regulate limited rights for corporations.
ROMNEY2012! He'll tell you what he will do as President after he is elected! Is the US electorate that stupid????