Monday, October 8, 2012

David Frum writes about how Mitt Romney's tax plan is going to hurt those just below the top 1%:
Romney adviser Martin Feldstein, one of America’s most distinguished tax economists, recently crunched the numbers of the Romney tax plan in The Wall Street Journal.
Against those who claim that Romney’s tax plan is arithmetically impossible, Feldstein argues it could be done. All it would take is a 30 percent -reduction in the tax deductions available to everybody reporting taxable income of more than $100,000.
 
In other words, a big tax cut of greatest value to those earning more than $500,000 a year (the people who pay the top rate on the majority of their income) will be offset by a tax increase that will fall most heavily on those who earn between $100,000 and $300,000 of taxable income.
...When Mitt Romney talks of capping itemized deductions at $17,000 to finance a cut in the top rate of federal income tax to 28 percent, he is talking about paying for a tax cut for the Porsche customer with a tax increase on the Porsche salesman. Both may be “rich” from the point of view of the typical American worker. But they are not rich in anything like the same way.
 
I like the line about the Porsche salesman.  But Frum misses something that should be obvious to anyone who has observed Republicans over the past two decades: those deductions are never going to be capped.

Once in power, Republicans are great at giving out the candy (tax cuts for the wealthy and the poor, Medicare Part D, lots of military spending), but not nearly so good at cutting out the fat that they're so good at talking about while campaigning.

So don't worry, Porsche salesmen!  President Mitt Romney will never be able to get rid of the mortgage deduction, and in fact he'll barely make a half-hearted effort at making his tax plan revenue neutral.  It will be tax cuts for the whole top 5%, spending cuts on programs for the poor that will barely make a dent in the grand scheme of themes, and then enormous deficits as far as the eye can see.  I wonder what the Tea Party will say then?

2 comments:

  1. How to explain one of the most mystifyingly bad debate performances ever from an incumbent president.
    Easy.
    Try defending failure. It's very tough. What's he going to do, try to convince us that his Unemployment, Deficits and Debt are good things?
    Wait until they get to Foreign Policy. He'll have to convince us that the attacks on our Embassy was the fault of a video made in America and since he killed Bin Laden the war on terrorism is over. What else has he got? Hope is gone and we're (except a guy in MA) not buying the change.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hungarian Citizen: "America's wealth comes from the efforts of people striving for success. Take away their incentive with badmouthing success and you take away the wealth that helps us take care of the needy.
    "I grew up in a socialist country and I have seen what that does to people. There is no hope, no freedom, no pride in achievement," he says with a soft Hungarian accent. "The nation became poorer and poorer, and that's what I see happening here."

    That is exactly what the author of this blog and President Obama would bring to America. No Hope, no Freedom, no Pride, Poorer and Poorer,,,Deeper and Deeper in Debt!

    ReplyDelete