Jason Bourne wrote:I thought Romney had given specifics like cut rate across the board by 20% which I heard Ryan repeat to Chris Wallace. I believe he proposes eliminating tax on cap gains and all investment income for income for earners below $200k Also, I have a detail of both Obama's tax proposals and Romney's and have two staff doing a seminar on it in a few weeks. Here is a link that goes into some of this:
I think the thing he is vague on is limiting itemized deductions for high income earners and this is what Ryan was vague about.
Dude! Your link says the opposite—he has not specified how it would work!
Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden. TPC has analyzed instead the effects of the specified proposals in the Romney plan. These estimates provide a guide as to how much the base broadening would need to raise taxes in different income groups to achieve the plan’s targets.
TPC’s analysis measures the change in tax liabilities against two alternative baselines: current law, which assumes that the 2001-10 tax cuts all expire in 2013 as scheduled, and current policy, which assumes that the 2011 law is permanent (except for the one-year payroll tax cut and temporary investment incentives).3 Compared with the current law baseline, the Romney plan (absent base broadening) would cut taxes for about three-fourths of taxpayers by an average of more than $7,000. In contrast, compared with current policy, about 11 percent of tax units would see their 2015 taxes go up an average of nearly $900 while 70 percent would get tax cuts averaging almost $4,300. The tax increases reflect the expiration of three provisions enacted in 2009: the American Opportunity Tax Credit and the expansion of the earned income credit and the child credit.
Also in the absence of such base broadening, TPC estimates that on a static basis, the Romney plan would lower federal tax liability by about $900 billion in calendar year 2015 compared with current law, roughly a 24 percent cut in total projected revenue. Relative to a current policy baseline, the reduction in liability would be about $480 billion in calendar year 2015.
Whenever you change the tax system in a revenue-neutral way, there will be winners and losers. The fact of the matter is the government needs more revenue. Who will be paying more under Romney's plan? The 47% that he doesn't care about?
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Roger beat me to it. The article says exactly the opposite. This is why Romney deserves so much criticism. He doesn't explain how the math is supposed to work. He just insults our intelligence by essentially saying, "trust me on this, and I'll explain it, maybe, after you elect me." But these are the kinds of things people need to know beforehand to judge whether or not they agree with his plan.
People making $50k/year will soon see their income shrink by $80/month because Obama's payroll tax cut is set to expire in just a few months. Most people, many of whom hate Obama, had no idea they were already enjoying this extra money during his tenure, and the irony is that some of them actually attack him for taxing too much!
Sheesh can people read? I said he had given specifics on where he would cut and how he would treat investment income but that he was VAGUE on the specifics of limiting deductions, etc which is exactly what my link pointed out.
Jason Bourne wrote:Beastie come on. Nobody is proposing such a thing for low middle class. Romney proposes 20% cuts and limits on deductions for higher income taxpayers. Bush cut taxes proportionately on everyone yet many cry that it was unfair because higher income earner got a larger dollar amount deduction. But everyone saved and of course lower income save less amounts because they pay less. That was my point.
Really, Jason? Your own link says:
Tax provisions in the 2009 stimulus act and subsequently extended through 2012 would expire. These include the American Opportunity tax credit for higher education, the expanded refundability of the child credit, and the expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC).
Compared with the current law baseline, the Romney plan (absent base broadening) would cut taxes for about three-fourths of taxpayers by an average of more than $7,000. In contrast, compared with current policy, about 11 percent of tax units would see their 2015 taxes go up an average of nearly $900 while 70 percent would get tax cuts averaging almost $4,300. The tax increases reflect the expiration of three provisions enacted in 2009: the American Opportunity Tax Credit and the expansion of the earned income credit and the child credit.
You do realize that the Earned Income credit is used by low income voters. We discussed this before. the EIC had broad bipartisan support and was called the "best anti-poverty" measure ever enacted in the US.
“The Earned Income Tax Credit is the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”
Ronald Reagan
Besides that, the fact is that Romney can't enact all these tax reductions in a revenue neutral way UNLESS he also goes after the middle class's deductions. Home mortgages. Child credit. Of course he can't say these things out loud.
In one way or the other, he's lying. Either he's lying about his tax plan being revenue neutral or he's lying about not raising taxes on the middle class. It's just math. Or the lack of it, to be more accurate.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Kevin Graham wrote:Roger beat me to it. The article says exactly the opposite. This is why Romney deserves so much criticism. He doesn't explain how the math is supposed to work. He just insults our intelligence by essentially saying, "trust me on this, and I'll explain it, maybe, after you elect me." But these are the kinds of things people need to know beforehand to judge whether or not they agree with his plan.
People making $50k/year will soon see their income shrink by $80/month because Obama's payroll tax cut is set to expire in just a few months. Most people, many of whom hate Obama, had no idea they were already enjoying this extra money during his tenure, and the irony is that some of them actually attack him for taxing too much!
Part of Obama's problem is that he hasn't advertised himself as flagrantly as Bush did. When Bush enacted a tax break, he mailed it out in one big check. HEY! Here's a check from George Bush! Enjoy! Instead, Obama did the more sensible thing, the thing that could more directly benefit the economy due to the higher likelihood that people would simply spend it each month. He put it in the paycheck. So he doesn't get credit.
Hey, that gives me an idea. Maybe Obama should have dressed in a flight suit and jumped out of an airplane with a huge check, a la Clearing House Sweepstakes.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Jason Bourne wrote:Sheesh can people read? I said he had given specifics on where he would cut and how he would treat investment income but that he was VAGUE on the specifics of limiting deductions, etc which is exactly what my link pointed out.
It's like he was really specific about the spoonful of sugar, but very vague about the medicine that goes with it. In terms of offering a responsible tax policy, all he's done is cynically promised a whole bunch of people money without suggesting that anybody would have to sacrifice. It gives me the same reaction as the kid running for student body president who promised that if elected, the lunch hour would increase by 25 minutes: yea, right.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Ok I was sloppy with the link I provided and did not read it carefully.
So I stand corrected there.
Much of what is current tax law-rates, credits, payroll tax cuts, etc are all slated to expire the end of this year. The agreement between the president and congress is what resulted in the now impending fiscal cliff that the tax law changes could be a part of.
I will tell you what. I will try to dig up the side by side comparison I have of the presidents ideas and Romney's. Not sure it will cut and paste here.
A Romney-Ryan plan to help the middle class overcome their tax burden through banking in the Cayman Islands is best left till after the election since all those reporters, except for Fox Media and the Wall Street Journal, would jump all over it.
Jason Bourne wrote:Ok I was sloppy with the link I provided and did not read it carefully.
So I stand corrected there.
Much of what is current tax law-rates, credits, payroll tax cuts, etc are all slated to expire the end of this year. The agreement between the president and congress is what resulted in the now impending fiscal cliff that the tax law changes could be a part of.
I will tell you what. I will try to dig up the side by side comparison I have of the presidents ideas and Romney's. Not sure it will cut and paste here.
Thanks, Jason.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
The document I have is too large to put it all here and it is pdf. I will copy some selected parts that you may find interesting.
Income Tax Rates
Under current law, the 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent individual income tax rates, originally enacted in 2001 and most recently extended by the 2010 Tax Relief Act, are scheduled to expire after 2012. The 10 percent rate would disappear entirely and the remaining rates would be 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent after 2012.
Obama Obama has proposed to continue the Bushera individual tax rates for all but “higherincome” individuals (which the White House broadly defines as individuals with incomes over $200,000 and families with incomes over $250,000). Under Obama’s proposal, the individual income tax rates after 2012 would be 10, 15, 25, 28, 36, and 39.6 percent. The inflation-adjusted rate brackets associated with the Bush-era rates would also continue, except for adjustment within the new 36 and 39.6 rates to accommodate the $200,000/$250,000 threshold
Romney Romney has proposed to extend permanently the current individual income tax rates of 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent. COMMENT. For the longer term, Romney also has discussed comprehensive tax reform as replacing current rates with a more streamlined, and lower, tax structure.
Capital Gains/Dividends Under current law, qualified capital gains and dividends are taxed at zero percent for taxpayers in the 10 percent and 15 percent brackets and at 15 percent for all other taxpayers. This investor-friendly treatment, originally enacted in 2003 and extended in the 2010 Tax Relief Act, is scheduled to expire after 2012.
Romney Romney has proposed to make permanent all of the Bush-era tax cuts, including the reduced tax rates on qualified dividends and capital gains. Romney has also discussed exempting from tax all capital gains, dividends and interest for individuals making less than $200,000 a year.
Obama Obama has proposed to tax dividends as ordinary income for higher-income individuals (taxpayers in the proposed 36 percent and 39.6 percent tax brackets) after 2012. Capital gains would be taxed at a 20 percent rate after 2012 for individuals with incomes over $200,000 and families with incomes over $250,000.
Child Tax Credit Under current law, the $1,000 child tax credit, originally enacted in 2001 and most recently extended by the 2010 Tax Relief Act, is scheduled to expire after 2012.
Obama Obama has proposed to make permanent the $1,000 child tax credit.
Romney Romney has proposed to make permanent the $1,000 child tax credit.
IMPACT. Unless extended, the child tax credit will be $500 effective January 1, 2013. Additional enhancements made in the Bush-era tax cuts will also expire. The current child credit starts to be phased out for taxpayers with income exceeding $110,000 (for joint filers) or $75,000 (for single individuals).
Adoption Credit The Bush-era tax cuts enhanced the adoption credit and the 2010 Tax Relief Act extended these enhancements through 2012.
Romney Romney has proposed to extend the Bush era tax cuts, including the enhanced adoption credit.
Obama Obama has proposed to extend the enhanced adoption credit.
COMMENT. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) made additional enhancements to the adoption credit, which expired after 2011. Obama has not proposed to extend these enhancements and Romney has proposed to repeal the PPACA
Child And Dependent Care Credit The child and dependent care credit is a percentage of the amount of work-related child and dependent care expenses paid by a qualified taxpayer to a care provider, subject to income limitations. Enhancements to the child and dependent care credit extended by the 2010 Tax Relief Act are scheduled to expire after 2012.
Obama Obama has proposed to extend the enhanced child and dependent care credit.
Romney Romney has proposed to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts, including the child and dependent care credit.
Payroll Tax Holiday After December 31, 2012, the current payroll tax holiday is scheduled to expire. The employee-share of OASDI taxes is scheduled to increase from 4.2 percent (in effect for calendar year 2012) to 6.2 percent (the employer share remains 6.2 percent).
Obama Obama has not addressed the payroll tax holiday.
Romney Romney has not addressed the payroll tax holiday.
American Opportunity Tax Credit The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 enhanced and renamed the Hope education credit as the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC). The 2010 Tax Relief Act extended the AOTC through 2012. After 2012, the Hope credit, with its lower benefits would return.
Romney Romney has not addressed the AOTC.
Obama Obama has proposed to make permanent the AOTC.
COMMENT. The AOTC reaches up to $2,500 of the cost of tuition, fees and course materials paid during the tax year. The AOTC is based on 100 percent of the first $2,000, plus 25 percent of the next $2,000, with adjusted gross income phase-outs starting at $80,000 for singles and $160,000 for joint filers. The Hope credit was limited to the first two years of post-secondary education. The AOTC may be claimed for all four years of postsecondary education.
INDIVIDUALS: 2014 AND BEYOND The basic goal for tax reform on the individual tax level expressed by both candidates is to broaden the tax base and lower tax rates. The candidates agree that tax reform should be revenue neutral. Each candidate also forecasts an improved economy from the savings of a simplified tax system and lower overall rates.
Income Tax Rates Implementation of tax reform on the individual, personal return level in time for the 2013 tax year is considered an impossible stretch by most observers. Both candidates see some extension of the Bush-era income tax rates for 2013 as an immediate issue that neither party can avoid by moving straight into comprehensive tax reform. Also recognized is that the more comprehensive the tax reform, the more gradually it may need to be phased in, particularly the elimination of certain deductions to finance targeted tax rate reductions. COMMENT. While some economists and others have called for a consumption tax similar to a value added tax (VAT) or national sales tax to supplement the individual income tax and allow for lower rates, neither candidate has endorsed such proposals. Consensus is that such an additional tax will remain politically unfeasible at least for the near future. Nevertheless, proponents have a louder voice now than they have had for quite some time.
Romney Romney has suggested an across-the-board 20 percent reduction in individual marginal tax rates (for example, those now in the top 35 percent bracket would pay at a 28 percent rate and those now in the bottom 10 percent bracket would pay at a 8 percent rate). Few other specifics, however, have emerged. Like Obama, he is not ruling out finding at least some revenue for individual tax reform from higher-income taxpayers, saying that rate reductions would be revenue neutral, that he would place no new tax burdens on the middle class, and that “we are not going to have high-income taxpayers pay less of a tax burden than they pay today.” Romney has not yet defined the parameters of “high-income” taxpayers nor the nature of those reforms and “loophole closing” that would counterbalance the benefits gained by those in the higher-income group through lower tax rates.
Obama Obama has endorsed lower tax rates for middle and lower-income taxpayers and has said he would not be open to limiting deductions for that group. He has stated that revenue can be found in part by taxing higher-income individuals (those in the “top two percent”) and significantly limiting their benefits from all itemized deductions.
Targeted Deductions And Other Tax Breaks In return for lower tax rates, each candidate in varying degrees looks to limiting current tax benefits as part of the “quid pro quo.” Benefits that have been in the spotlight include: Mortgage interest deduction. Interest on mortgage debt up to $1.1 million secured by a principal residence and second residences is currently deductible.
Obama Obama has proposed to limit the mortgage interest deduction indirectly by limiting the benefit of all itemized deductions taken by higher-income individuals.
Romney Romney has suggested eliminating the ability of higher-income taxpayers from deducting mortgage interest on second homes, but without defining “higher-income.” Charitable deductions. Charitable contributions are deductible as an itemized deduction generally up to 50 percent of adjusted gross income.
Romney Romney has hinted that he would be open to limiting the tax benefits from charitable deductions for higher-income taxpayers.
Obama Obama has proposed to reduce the benefit through an overall limitation on itemized deductions for higher-income individuals.
IMPACT. Charities are concerned that eliminating deductions for charitable contributions would depress future giving. The original Pease limitation excluded both medical expenses and charitable deductions from its reach, unlike these latest reform proposals.
Municipal bond interest. Most municipal bond interest is currently exempt from federal income tax.
Obama Obama would limit the exclusion of municipal bond interest for higher-income taxpayers.
Romney Romney would tax some portion of this otherwise tax-exempt interest from municipal bonds based upon income level.