Does Romney's Tax Math Add Up?

[_Bob Loblaw]

His latest proposal is to cut corporate taxes while closing loopholes to make up for lost revenue:

Reforming the corporate tax code to bring down tax rates – cutting tax rates on domestic manufacturers by nearly a quarter – while closing tax preferences and loopholes to pay for it.

So, close to a 25% cut in corporate tax rates combined with unspecified eliminations of "preferences and loopholes." I don't see how it could add up without some specifics. Maybe Kevin is right about this, after all.

[_Drifting]

In a recent paper I wrote with two colleagues, we showed that a revenue-neutral plan that met five specific goals that Governor Romney had put forth (reducing income tax rates by 20 percent, repealing the estate tax, the alternative minimum tax, and capital income taxes for middle class households, and enhancing saving and investment) would cut taxes for households with income above $200,000, and -- as a result of revenue-neutrality -- would therefore necessarily have to raise taxes on taxpayers below $200,000.
This was true even when we bent over backwards to make the plan as favorable to Romney as possible. We considered an unrealistically progressive way of financing the specified tax reductions. We accounted for revenue feedback coming from potential economic growth estimates as estimated by Romney advisor Greg Mankiw. We even ignored the need to finance about a trillion dollars in Romney's proposed corporate cuts.

Our conclusion was not a prediction about Governor Romney would do as president, it was an arithmetic calculation: all of the promises couldn't be met simultaneously without resorting to tax increases on households with income below $200,000.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... 72261.html

I said Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible: he can't simultaneously keep his pledges to cut tax rates 20 percent and repeal the estate tax and alternative minimum tax; broaden the tax base enough to avoid growing the deficit; and not raise taxes on the middle class. They say they have six independent studies -- six! -- that "have confirmed the soundness of the governor’s tax plan," and so I should stop whining. Let's take a tour of those studies and see how they measure up.
The Romney campaign sent over a list of the studies, but they are perhaps more accurately described as "analyses," since four of them are blog posts or op-eds. I'm not hating -- I blog for a living -- but I don't generally describe my posts as "studies."

None of the analyses do what Romney's campaign says: show that his tax plan is sound.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Oh, wait. The plan in the OP is actually Obama's.

[_Drifting]

Oh, wait. The plan in the OP is actually Obama's.

Good job I quoted stuff about Romney's then, else you would have successfully tricked me. Cheap shot...

[_Bob Loblaw]

Oh, wait. The plan in the OP is actually Obama's.

Good job I quoted stuff about Romney's then, else you would have successfully tricked me. Cheap shot...

I just wondered if anyone would catch.

[_Drifting]

I just wondered if anyone would catch.

I struggle to even catch cold!