PDA

View Full Version : Pantalones querido líder están en llamas!



LWW
10-08-2012, 02:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Last night, the Obama campaign blasted out another email claiming that Mitt Romney's tax plan would either require raising taxes on the middle class or blowing a hole in the deficit. "Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release. "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

But that's not true. Princeton professor Harvey Rosen tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his paper on Romney's tax plan:

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>"I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral."</span>

You can check the math that shows Romney's plan is mathematically possible here.</div></div>

LET THE DENIALS BEGIN! (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-obama-campaign-misrepresenting-my-study-romneys-tax-plan_653917.html)

eg8r
10-08-2012, 02:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Last night, the Obama campaign blasted out another email claiming that Mitt Romney's tax plan would either require raising taxes on the middle class or blowing a hole in the deficit.</div></div>Lefties like this lie. Obama also knows that 47% of the Americans still haven't figured out that he has taxed the poor and middle class specifically.

eg8r

LWW
10-08-2012, 02:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Last night, the Obama campaign blasted out another email claiming that Mitt Romney's tax plan would either require raising taxes on the middle class or blowing a hole in the deficit.</div></div>Lefties like this lie. Obama also knows that 47% of the Americans still haven't figured out that he has taxed the poor and middle class specifically.

eg8r </div></div>

Without spending cuts, the budget cannot be balanced unless the middlessvand poor are taxed into dust.

Soflasnapper
10-08-2012, 06:16 PM
The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral."

It is not a reasonable assumption that Romney would be willing to propose, or able to move through Congress, the entire repeal of all deductions and tax preferences for the wealthiest. All mortgage interest deductions (I think he's talked about keeping that), all charitable deductions (I think he's talked about keeping that as well), and he's definitely talked about keeping preferred tax rates for cap gains and dividends.

That impossibility, plus his actually specified repeal of the alternate minimum tax and the estate tax altogether, make the chances of all of this working out, theoretically, about 0%.

About the same as a current cellar dweller in the major leagues winning the World Series next year.

BTW, assuming arguendo this is true as the author claims ('PLAUSIBLE assumptions'??? LOL, please!), that is ONE source saying it. How about his other 5 he claimed?

So, to date, we have possible although not likely evidence that Myth is only 5/6th the liar we thought before.

LWW
10-08-2012, 06:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It is not a reasonable assumption that Romney would be willing to propose, or able to move through Congress, the entire repeal of all deductions and tax preferences for the wealthiest. All mortgage interest deductions (I think he's talked about keeping that), all charitable deductions (I think he's talked about keeping that as well), and he's definitely talked about keeping preferred tax rates for cap gains and dividends.
</div></div>

It's also not reasonable to believe this as been suggested or woud be requre.

Soflasnapper
10-08-2012, 06:29 PM
That's the way all the analysts proceeded to find out if it was even remotely possible.

If he DOESN'T do those things, of course, it is completely impossible. That's the point.

LWW
10-08-2012, 06:31 PM
Supported by what ... other than the regime telling you this.

Soflasnapper
10-08-2012, 06:36 PM
That's the analysis the TPC ran, and the assumptions on which the critiques of that are offered.

From your cite:

"Under those assumptions and policies it would be revenue neutral," Gale wrote in an email, "but remember the tax expenditures <span style='font-size: 14pt'>are eliminated from the top down</span> and that is not administratively feasible."

Eliminated. From the top down. That's exactly what it says and means, and the crux of the analysis to see if that can work.

Then they want to talk about growth? Taking away as much as you give in tax breaks (to reach revenue neutrality) is not a supply side/growth enhancing tax cut.

See the aftermath of Reagan's '86 tax reform (also revenue neutral) to see what growth effects that caused.

LWW
10-08-2012, 06:43 PM
And, f corse, that in't what you claimed before.