Romney tax plan to lower tax rates for high income, higher on middle and lower income

[her209]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf

Abstract

This paper examines the tradeoffs among three competing goals that are inherent in a revenue-neutral income tax reform—maintaining tax revenues, ensuring a progressive tax system, and lowering marginal tax rates—drawing on the example of the tax policies advanced in presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s tax plan. Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.

Conclusion

In this paper we examine the tradeoffs between rates, tax expenditures, and the progressivity of the tax schedules that are inherent in revenue-neutral tax returns. We show that plans that advance steeply lower marginal tax rate structures would require deep cuts in tax expenditures to offset the revenue losses arising from low rates. Because many of the largest tax expenditures benefit middle- and lower-income households, deep reductions tax expenditures can alter the distribution of the tax burden. To illustrate these tradeoffs, we examine as an example a set of tax rate reductions specified in Governor Romney’s tax plan. We show that given the proposed tax rates and proscription against reducing tax expenditures aimed at saving and investment, cutting tax expenditures will result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers—even if individual income tax expenditures could be eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible.

Hush, hush. The middle and lower income earners don't know what's coming to them.

 

[LegendKiller]

How is this surprising? All he's doing is saying "Trust me, it'll work this time. I know it hasn't for 30 years but I can make this work. Just nevermind it didn't work for anybody else and the middle class got fucked. It will work under me, trust me".

 

[cybrsage]

Out of curiousity, did Romney promise not to raise taxes on the non-rich? Obama did, then raised the taxes anyway. Just curious if Romney did - I do not know.

 

[Throckmorton]

Out of curiousity, did Romney promise not to raise taxes on the non-rich? Obama did, then raised the taxes anyway. Just curious if Romney did - I do not know.

Yes he has been promising not to raise taxes on the non rich.

When did Obama raise taxes?

 

[cybrsage]

Obamacare alone caused many:

The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers.
“This is a clear violation of the president’s pledge to avoid tax hikes on low and middle income taxpayers,” said in a statement from the panel, which is chaired by Rep. Dave Camp, Michigan Republican.

http://circuswagon.wordpress.com/20...-obamacare-most-on-the-middle-class-and-poor/

 

[Engineer]

Yes he has been promising not to raise taxes on the non rich.

When did Obama raise taxes?

He hasn't raised them (yet). He has extended the Bush tax cuts, certain credits and lowered the SS payroll tax from 6.45% to 4.45% (which ends at the end of this year).

 

[Todd33]

Rep Dave Camp should know, he is a reliable source of nonpartisan info.

 

[Dulanic]

Out of curiousity, did Romney promise not to raise taxes on the non-rich? Obama did, then raised the taxes anyway. Just curious if Romney did - I do not know.

In one of the debates he promised he would not raise taxes on the middle class... after all we are crushed, remember?

 

[quest55720]

I don't think it matters what Romney wants for tax policy it won't pass congress if it has any cuts for the rich. Since the GOP blew it and won't even get majority in the senate. There will be enough democrats who will stand united against tax cuts for the rich. Good old gridlock when congress is at its best IMO.

 

[Dulanic]

I don't think it matters what Romney wants for tax policy it won't pass congress if it has any cuts for the rich. Since the GOP blew it and won't even get majority in the senate. There will be enough democrats who will stand united against tax cuts for the rich. Good old gridlock when congress is at its best IMO.

Quid Pro Quo has become Vos intercluderent nos, intercluderent vobis.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think it matters what Romney wants for tax policy it won't pass congress if it has any cuts for the rich. Since the GOP blew it and won't even get majority in the senate. There will be enough democrats who will stand united against tax cuts for the rich. Good old gridlock when congress is at its best IMO.

I doubt that taxes would be cut for the rich in any event, but the Bush tax cuts are another story entirely. It depends on what sort of hostage taking Repubs are willing to undertake. In 2009, it was extended UI benefits in the depths of the lesser Depression, so they'll basically stop at nothing unless Dems are willing to call, force 'em to put their cards on the table.

I figure the whole contrived debt ceiling fracas & "fiscal cliff" scenario are just the set-up for another hostage scenario...

 

[Engineer]

I doubt that taxes would be cut for the rich in any event, but the Bush tax cuts are another story entirely. It depends on what sort of hostage taking Repubs are willing to undertake. In 2009, it was extended UI benefits in the depths of the lesser Depression, so they'll basically stop at nothing unless Dems are willing to call, force 'em to put their cards on the table.

I figure the whole contrived debt ceiling fracas & "fiscal cliff" scenario are just the set-up for another hostage scenario...

I say let it go off the cliff for a few months and then see who is willing to bend.

 

[Jhhnn]

I say let it go off the cliff for a few months and then see who is willing to bend.

That's what I said in late 2009- let repub congress critters go home & explain to their broke-ass redneck constituencies why they cut off their unemployment... Dems apparently figured that the economy was still too fragile for that, and they were probably right.

The problem with taking a hard line is that the economic consequences fall disproportionately away from the true Bush constituency. It's not like they really need to make money, at all, or that they don't have enormous reserves to carry them over. The sad truth is that they can benefit from a deflationary spiral while the rest of us can't, so even that isn't an empty threat if they can create the proer political cover for it.

Power is relative, and the best time to be rich is when everybody else is busted. America's wealthiest weren't shy about putting a beatdown on everybody else in 1931, and I doubt they'd behave any differently today.

 

[GMC12]

Yes he has been promising not to raise taxes on the non rich.

When did Obama raise taxes?

Did Congress agree with the president about raising the tax or not ! But we need 4more years.

 

[Exterous]

I say let it go off the cliff for a few months and then see who is willing to bend.

I don't know. I feel like there are a lot of rumblings in the business world about the fiscal cliff (at least there are certainly a lot of articles about it in the WSJ) and how companies are storing reserves in case it comes to pass. I think we'll see the start of another downwards cycle. The government isn't spending money and the GDP is going to go down so companies won't spend money to survive the downturn, lowering GDP more

*shrug* Just my impression but I hope the cliff doesn't come to pass

 

[Thump553]

Out of curiousity, did Romney promise not to raise taxes on the non-rich? Obama did, then raised the taxes anyway. Just curious if Romney did - I do not know.

You must have missed the debates. He absolutely guaranteed it.