Sorry for lack of links, O great one, but I'm visiting a friend and am reliant on mobile only access. Still, I can follow links from yours and read. They never said on HotAir that it was 45 billion dollars each.

Even if it were, that is still only $1.2Tn over 10 years, and leaves a lot left over.

danivon wrote:Sorry for lack of links, O great one, but I'm visiting a friend and am reliant on mobile only access. Still, I can follow links from yours and read. They never said on HotAir that it was 45 billion dollars each.

Even if it were, that is still only $1.2Tn over 10 years, and leaves a lot left over.

Their source did. Furthermore, the source said if ALL deductions were on the table, there was no problem at all.

Number of insulting things said by DF on Redscape: a gazillion. Number of funny things: zero. I;m sorry, I'm sure you laugh a ton at your "clever ripostes" but does anyone else?

At the time of the debate Obama had a 24 point lead in Massachusetts, that he couldn't turn that fact into a debate death blow to Romney who made a big point about his record as governor is beyond puzzling.

freeman2 wrote:Number of insulting things said by DF on Redscape: a gazillion. Number of funny things: zero. I;m sorry, I'm sure you laugh a ton at your "clever ripostes" but does anyone else?

The truth is rarely funny.

I pointed out you, like many liberals, are whining. That is factual.

As for who is lying, it seems it might be Mr. Obama. Princeton professor Harvey Rosen, who wrote the report the Obama campaign leans on so heavily:

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.

In other words, the math works.

Neal Anderth wrote:At the time of the debate Obama had a 24 point lead in Massachusetts, that he couldn't turn that fact into a debate death blow to Romney who made a big point about his record as governor is beyond puzzling.

You don't get it.

The fact that he was able to do anything in a state that is 3:1 Democratic over Republican is pretty amazing. And, the more he gets to stress his bipartisan record vs. Obama's my-way-or-the-highway partisan record, the better for Romney.

First of all, why isn't RJ analyzing this tax stuff and make things easy for the rest of us! I know I don't like wading through this tedious stuff...

I looked at the Brookings study.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/resear ... e%20looney

They indicate that there is basically 560 billion of dollars of tax deductions on the table (they exclude tax deductions having to do with saving and investment). They assume that with Romney's cut of 20% across the board, elimination of capital gains tax, and elimination of Obamacare that there will be a tax shortfall of 360 billion. They do not factor any off-setting growth as a result of the tax cuts (though they note a study indicating that at best growth might reduce the tax shortfall to 306 billion dollars).

So the essential result that even if you try to eliminate the tax deductions in as progressive way as possible this would still result in a tax hike for middle-class taxpayers of 86 billion dollars.

DF's right-wing site indicates that the 86 million hit on middle-class taxpayers can be off-set by the 54 billiion dollars in growth and 45 billion for exclusion of interest on state and local bond and build-up in life insurance vehicles.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/che ... 53485.html

As the author of the Brookings study notes, it is not administratively feasible to shift that money from the expected growth and the 45 billion in further elimination of tax deductions solely over to middle-class taxpayers. It also seems questionable to me that you can count on growth from a revenue neutral plan In other words, it is nice to think that by doing this tax overhaul you will somehow better our economy and get increased tax receipts but you should not factor in that to the tax proposal. I might buy that if you cut taxes 360 billions you get 54 billion in growth but you are not going to get 54 billion in growth if you increase taxes by 308 billion to off-set your tax reduction. Think about it--that would mean expecting 54 billion in growth from a net 54 billion tax cut. I also seriously doubt that cutting tax deductions for state and municipal bonds would be politically possible (you imagiine the opposition there would be to that proposal)

So, yeah, it is virtually impossible to off-set the tax cuts with elimination of tax loopholes without increasing middle-class taxes and definitely politically impossible. Romney is just going to cut taxes, make a half-hearted attempt to close some loopholes, and that will be that. And if he seriously tries to cut loopholes to off-set the cut in rates then the middle-class wiill take the brunt of it. But I doubt he will do that. Anyone who thinks differently is being very naive

First, thanks for doing some work. I do appreciate that.

Second, bottom line: it doesn't matter what somebody "assumes." What matters is what Romney has said. Nothing in what follows is what Romney has said.

freeman2 wrote:First of all, why isn't RJ analyzing this tax stuff and make things easy for the rest of us! I know I don't like wading through this tedious stuff...

I looked at the Brookings study.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/resear ... e%20looney

They indicate that there is basically 560 billion of dollars of tax deductions on the table (they exclude tax deductions having to do with saving and investment). They assume that with Romney's cut of 20% across the board, elimination of capital gains tax, and elimination of Obamacare that there will be a tax shortfall of 360 billion. They do not factor any off-setting growth as a result of the tax cuts (though they note a study indicating that at best growth might reduce the tax shortfall to 306 billion dollars).

So the essential result that even if you try to eliminate the tax deductions in as progressive way as possible this would still result in a tax hike for middle-class taxpayers of 86 billion dollars.

No, you're wrong. One of the authors of the study you cite, Mr. Gale, contra your post, says so:

That still leaves us $33 billion short. But TPC also acknowledges that its study assumed that Romney would not touch "the exclusion of interest on state and local bonds and the exclusion of inside-buildup on life insurance vehicles." According to TPC, eliminating these exclusions could raise $45 billion in revenue.

So economic growth ($53 billion) plus nixing these two exclusions ($45 billion) equals $98 billion. That's $12 billion more than the $86 billion needed to prevent a middle class tax hike.

William G. Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center and one of the authors of the study on Romney's tax plan, told me this morning that under these two assumptions Romney's tax plan would maintain revenue neutrality without raising middle class taxes. "Under those assumptions and policies it would be revenue neutral," Gale wrote in an email, "but remember the tax expenditures are eliminated from the top down and that is not administratively feasible. So you also have to assume tax expenditures are eliminated in an infeasible manner to avoid the tax increase on households with income below $200,000."

So what the Tax Policy Center is really saying is not that Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible, but that it's difficult. Whether or not eliminating tax expenditures from the top down is "administratively feasible" is a matter of opinion--not a matter of math.

So, yeah, it is virtually impossible to off-set the tax cuts with elimination of tax loopholes without increasing middle-class taxes and definitely politically impossible. Romney is just going to cut taxes, make a half-hearted attempt to close some loopholes, and that will be that. And if he seriously tries to cut loopholes to off-set the cut in rates then the middle-class wiill take the brunt of it. But I doubt he will do that. Anyone who thinks differently is being very naive

False.

And, the President is already raising taxes on the middle class. That's what Obamacare does--directly and indirectly (by taxing companies making medical instruments, etc.).

Here's one thing you can't deny: the President has not led on economic issues. We're near the fiscal cliff and what's he doing? Nothing, except offering taxpayer money to corporations if they're held liable for violating the WARN Act.

Illegal.

Well, DF the co-author of the Brookings study (according to your right-wing site) admits that if you assume two things that she does not agree with (namely that the tax cuts would reduce the shortfull in tax receipts by 54 billion dollars and that eliminating taxes on interest on state and local bonds is on the table of possible cuts) then Romney's tax plan could be revenue neutral. She also said that it was not administratively feasible to do so. Two not agreed to assumptions plus a caveat that is not administratively feasible and you're citing the author of the study in your favor?

Ok, DF, I'm back, and despite my main laptop having a screen failure I've pulled out the back-up and am ready to show you where your inference is incorrect:

Doctor Fate wrote:So, the citation is critical of the TPC study and is pointing out its errors. There are two tax expenditures worth $45B each annually, which it missed. Also, those aren't the only ones that are included in the calculations--those are just the ones they missed.

Ok. You linked to This HotAir article. In there, is a link to another of their articles, using the words assumes two big loopholes/deductions worth $45 billion are off the table for Romney.

In there, there is the following...

HotAir wrote:That still leaves us $33 billion short. But TPC also acknowledges that its study assumed that Romney would not touch "the exclusion of interest on state and local bonds and the exclusion of inside-buildup on life insurance vehicles." According to TPC, eliminating these exclusions could raise $45 billion in revenue.

So economic growth ($53 billion) plus nixing these two exclusions ($45 billion) equals $98 billion. That's $12 billion more than the $86 billion needed to prevent a middle class tax hike.

So, HotAir only use $45bn for both deductions. Not $45bn for each.

Also, you are incorrect to say that the TPC 'missed' them. They referred to them, hence HotAir citing them and applying them in their math.

So, sorry, but you were wrong, and hiding behind a lack of links is pretty poor. You are quite keen to call people liars. You've had ample chance to correct your assertions and check your own sources. Having not bothered to, and carried on making out that I am being dishonest (with a bit of a personal dig, to boot), I think you are somewhat hoist by your own petard.

I won't call you a liar on this one. I'll settle for wrong.

danivon wrote:Ok, DF, I'm back, and despite my main laptop having a screen failure I've pulled out the back-up and am ready to show you where your inference is incorrect:

Doctor Fate wrote:So, the citation is critical of the TPC study and is pointing out its errors. There are two tax expenditures worth $45B each annually, which it missed. Also, those aren't the only ones that are included in the calculations--those are just the ones they missed.

Ok. You linked to This HotAir article. In there, is a link to another of their articles, using the words assumes two big loopholes/deductions worth $45 billion are off the table for Romney.

In there, there is the following...

HotAir wrote:That still leaves us $33 billion short. But TPC also acknowledges that its study assumed that Romney would not touch "the exclusion of interest on state and local bonds and the exclusion of inside-buildup on life insurance vehicles." According to TPC, eliminating these exclusions could raise $45 billion in revenue.

So economic growth ($53 billion) plus nixing these two exclusions ($45 billion) equals $98 billion. That's $12 billion more than the $86 billion needed to prevent a middle class tax hike.

So, HotAir only use $45bn for both deductions. Not $45bn for each.

Also, you are incorrect to say that the TPC 'missed' them. They referred to them, hence HotAir citing them and applying them in their math.

So, sorry, but you were wrong, and hiding behind a lack of links is pretty poor. You are quite keen to call people liars. You've had ample chance to correct your assertions and check your own sources. Having not bothered to, and carried on making out that I am being dishonest (with a bit of a personal dig, to boot), I think you are somewhat hoist by your own petard.

I won't call you a liar on this one. I'll settle for wrong.

I'll settle for the link in my post two posts above yours that says the math adds up--from one of the authors of the study, Mr. Gale. Additionally, as I pointed out a couple of posts before that, Professor Rosen, who wrote the report Obama uses/abuses, said (repost):

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.

Have a nice day.

So, that is an admission that you were wrong to make out I had read incorrectly regarding the deductions being $45M each? That the reading error was your and not mine?

Mr Gale also says:

but remember the tax expenditures are eliminated from the top down and that is not administratively feasible. So you also have to assume tax expenditures are eliminated in an infeasible manner to avoid the tax increase on households with income below $200,000.

So, basically he's saying the 'math' works, but it's not actually realistic as a policy. Not because of politics, but because of the administrative issues. Your HotAir article disputes that, but offers no evidence to show how it would be feasible to do it. Neither do you.

On growth, the TPC are being criticised for not using the Mankiw & Wurzl projections. However, those projections assume infinite elasticity in savings (which is observably false), and the use of lump-sum 'rebate cheques' rather than a simple rate reduction.

Prof Rosen posits that a 2.29% growth rate would make up the difference, from an assumed 2% used by the TPC. I'm not sure where he gets that from, because while it would mean GDP in 2022 being $560bn greater, the tax brought in by that would of course be much lower (and lower than current tax/gdp ratios becaue there's been a rate cut.

Well, here's one thing that you can't refute, deny or obfuscate: no one has racked up trillion dollars deficits quite like your man.

Quoting Rosen:

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.

If that's not clear enough, there's no hope.

It's clear what Prof Rosen's opinion is. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it, or the basis for it. However many times you repeatedly post it, that won't change (proof by repetition not being a recognised logical rule).

Bush was far more impressive than Obama in the 'racking up deficits' department. He inherited a balanced budget and left office with a trillion dollar deficit. The tax cuts then didn't help (they made things worse), and I can't see tax cutting working now. The Laffer Curve has moved (or rather, the US's position on it has shifted), but the right just don't get it.