Distributional Effects of Romney Tax Plan

[ClydeR]

Romney's plan is to cut all tax rates by 20% but remain revenue neutral by eliminating unspecified tax breaks. A new study concludes that his plan would decrease taxes paid by the top 5% and increase taxes paid by the middle class. They looked at it from every possible angle, and the result was always the same.


Mitt Romney’s plan to overhaul the tax code would produce cuts for the richest 5 percent of Americans — and bigger bills for everybody else, according to an independent analysis set for release Wednesday.

The study was conducted by researchers at the Brookings Institution and the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, who seem to bend over backward to be fair to the Republican presidential candidate. To cover the cost of his plan — which would reduce tax rates by 20 percent, repeal the estate tax and eliminate taxes on investment income for middle-class taxpayers — the researchers assume that Romney would go after breaks for the richest taxpayers first.

They even look at what would happen if Republicans’ dreams for tax reform came true and the proposal generated significant revenue through economic growth.

None of it helped Romney. His rate-cutting plan for individuals would reduce tax collections by about $360 billion in 2015, the study says. To avoid increasing deficits — as Romney has pledged — the plan would have to generate an equivalent amount of revenue by slashing tax breaks for mortgage interest, employer-provided health care, education, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and child care — all breaks that benefit the middle class.

“It is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment and that does not result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers,” the study concludes.

More... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html)

[ClydeR]

Both campaigns have now responded to my post from this morning about the tax report.

First, Obama, mentioned it in a speech in Ohio..


THE PRESIDENT: Now, the bulk of this tax cut would go to the very top. A lot of it would go to the wealthiest 1 percent of all households. Folks making more than $3 million a year -- the top one-tenth of one percent -- would get a tax cut worth almost a quarter of a million dollars. Now, think about that. Folks making $3 million a year or more would get a quarter-of-a-million-dollar tax cut.

But, listen, it gets worse. (Laughter.) Under my opponent’s plan, who do you think gets the bill for these $250,000 tax cuts? You do. And you do not have to take my word for it. Just today, an independent, nonpartisan organization ran all the numbers on Governor Romney’s plan. This wasn’t my staff, this wasn’t something we did -- an independent group ran the numbers. They found that if Governor Romney wants to keep his word and pay for this plan, then he’d have to cut tax breaks that middle-class families depend on to pay for your home -- the home mortgage deduction -- to pay for your health care -- the health care deduction -- to send your kids to college. That means the average middle-class family with children, according to this study, would be hit with a tax increase of more than $2,000.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: And here’s the thing. He’s not asking you to contribute more to pay down the deficit. He’s not asking you to pay more to invest in our children’s education or rebuild our roads or put more folks back to work. He’s asking you to pay more so that people like him can get a big tax cut. In order to afford just one $250,000 tax cut for somebody like Mr. Romney, 125 families like yours would have to pay another $2,000 in taxes each and every year.

Does that sound like a good plan for economic growth?

More... (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/01/remarks-president-campaign-event)

[ClydeR]

Then Romney's spox said we should ignore the report because it was from a biased source. But when Romney wanted to discredit my candidate Rick Perry during the primary season, he called the Tax Policy Center "objective."


The Romney campaign is pushing back against a new study from researchers at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution and Tax Policy Center suggesting Mitt Romney’s tax proposals would actually increase taxes for a whopping a 95% of Americans, denouncing the Tax Policy Center as a “liberal” group. While the Romney campaign hasn’t rebutted the substance of the study, they claim the Tax Policy Center should be dismissed entirely as a biased source.

But the Obama campaign notes that Romney aides took a very different view of the group when they put out a similar analysis of Rick Perry’s tax plan during the Republican primaries. Here’s how a Romney press release in November described their work: Objective, Third-Party Analysis Showed Governor Perry’s Plan Would Raise Taxes On Millions Of American Families – But He Doesn’t Seem Interested In The Discussion.

More... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/think-tanked/post/mitt-romney-campaign-and-the-political-utility-of-think-tanks/2012/08/01/gJQAbB6nPX_blog.html)

[Back]

Why are we not surprised? The rich are greedy and shriek at having to pay their fair share.

Its not about rich or poor. Its about being decent.

[Parkbandit]

Why are we not surprised? The rich are greedy and shriek at having to pay their fair share.

Its not about rich or poor. Its about being decent.

ROFL

[Gompers]

ROFL

That's your reply? Impressive!

[Tgo01]

Well if trickle down economics doesn't work maybe trickle up economics would? Let's give it a whirl.

[Back]

ROFL

Lets be honest. What tax bracket tries the hardest to dodge paying taxes?

[Back]

Well if trickle down economics doesn't work maybe trickle up economics would? Let's give it a whirl.

Sure, lets eliminate all workers rights here so we don't have to "outsource" to places that have no worker rights. That should save us a penny on a dollar.

[Tgo01]

Sure, lets eliminate all workers rights here so we don't have to "outsource" to places that have no worker rights. That should save us a penny on a dollar.

Well there you go! Once our middle class gets used to earning 2 dollars a day just think of how flush our country would be with jobs. No longer will Asia have the monopoly on cheap labor.

[Tgo01]

Lets be honest. What tax bracket tries the hardest to dodge paying taxes?

The poor/middle class, half of them already don't pay taxes. Ba da bum, TSSHHHH.

[Furryrat]

Leftist propaganda. As you say Romney pledges to not increase deficits, which will be accomplished by slashing spending and returning this country to its small government roots. It is perfectly sound logic to cut both taxes and spending at the same time to maintain the current deficit level. This study ignores that fact.

[Back]

How about we tax people appropriately and fine those who think they should not have to pay?

[Parkbandit]

That's your reply? Impressive!

I laugh at funny posts. Backlash makes unintentional funny posts all the time in the political folder.

[Parkbandit]

Lets be honest. What tax bracket tries the hardest to dodge paying taxes?

Probably the bracket that pays the largest share. I mean, almost 50% of the country doesn't have anything to dodge...

[Parkbandit]

How about we tax people appropriately and fine those who think they should not have to pay?

What do you believe is "appropriate"? Here are the current single tax brackets... assign a percent that you believe is "fair":

$08 - $8700
$8701 - $35,350
$35,351 - $85,650
$85,651 - $178,650
$178,651 - $388,350
$388,351+

[Bobmuhthol]

Leftist propaganda. As you say Romney pledges to not increase deficits, which will be accomplished by slashing spending and returning this country to its small government roots. It is perfectly sound logic to cut both taxes and spending at the same time to maintain the current deficit level. This study ignores that fact.

Yeah, the Brookings Institute "ignored" something that you casually pointed out, totally. Or maybe it's not leftist propaganda and Romney wants to reduce tax rates at the high end of income and reduce tax benefits elsewhere, which is a lot more plausible than your theory.

[~Rocktar~]

Lets be honest. What tax bracket tries the hardest to dodge paying taxes?

What tax bracket who pays no income tax is pandered too the most by Liberal Socialists with promises of class warfare and more free shit from the government?

[Back]

What tax bracket who pays no income tax is pandered too the most by Liberal Socialists with promises of class warfare and more free shit from the government?

Dude. Thats just straight up not true. As in false. I can't believe even you believe that nonsense.

[Back]

What do you believe is "appropriate"? Here are the current single tax brackets... assign a percent that you believe is "fair":

$08 - $8700
$8701 - $35,350
$35,351 - $85,650
$85,651 - $178,650
$178,651 - $388,350
$388,351+

Flat 15% across the board? That would be a starting point.

You know, avoiding paying taxes is a crime in this country. If the bottom 99% gets hunted then fuck the 1% who get away with it through loopholes.

[Parkbandit]

Flat 15% across the board? That would be a starting point.

So, you propose a bigger tax break for the wealthy than any other candidate. Why are you so greedy and indecent? You must be in the pocket of big oil and hate poor people.

Another shiny example of you spouting the liberal talking points and not having a single clue what you are saying. Thank you for your "participation" though.



You know, avoiding paying taxes is a crime in this country. If the bottom 99% gets hunted then fuck the 1% who get away with it through loopholes.

The bottom 50% don't pay a net income tax.. So how again are they getting hunted again?

[Back]

So, you propose a bigger tax break for the wealthy than any other candidate. Why are you so greedy and indecent? You must be in the pocket of big oil and hate poor people.

Another shiny example of you spouting the liberal talking points and not having a single clue what you are saying. Thank you for your "participation" though.



The bottom 50% don't pay a net income tax.. So how again are they getting hunted again?

If Romney can survive paying 15% on capital gains then the rest of us should not have to pay anything higher than that on any income. Lets be fair.

You keep pointing fingers at the poor like they are the ones causing the problem. Thats about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Yeah man, damn people with no money are the real problem with our financial problems. LOL!

[Parkbandit]

If Romney can survive paying 15% on capital gains then the rest of us should not have to pay anything higher than that on any income. Lets be fair.

Capital gains tax is not income tax. I pay 7% sales tax... By your logic we should only pay a 7% flat income tax.

Another. Shiny. Example.



You keep pointing fingers at the poor like they are the ones causing the problem. Thats about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Yeah man, damn people with no money are the real problem with our financial problems. LOL!

Again, you can't understand a simple concept. You said "99%" get "hunted" for their income tax. That is factually incorrect. No where did I blame poor people for anything. That would be as dumb as blaming rich people for your lot in life.

Pretty stupid... as you've perfectly illustrated for everyone.

[Back]

Capital gains tax is not income tax. I pay 7% sales tax... By your logic we should only pay a 7% flat income tax.

Another. Shiny. Example.



Again, you can't understand a simple concept. You said "99%" get "hunted" for their income tax. That is factually incorrect. No where did I blame poor people for anything. That would be as dumb as blaming rich people for your lot in life.

Pretty stupid... as you've perfectly illustrated for everyone.

In Maryland state tax is 6% for general sales and a special 9% on alcohol. Do people drive to north Virginia to buy beer? Bet your ass they do. We all game the system. It's in our nature to. Lets level out the playing field so we can take the conflict out of the equation. Then we can concentrate on fixing real problems like hunger, cancer, war, and all those real issues no one wants to talk about.

[ClydeR]

Leftist propaganda. As you say Romney pledges to not increase deficits, which will be accomplished by slashing spending and returning this country to its small government roots. It is perfectly sound logic to cut both taxes and spending at the same time to maintain the current deficit level. This study ignores that fact.

That's sort of true. Here's what the actual report says about spending cuts..


Spending cuts are excluded from the analysis. As a result, tax rate reductions are wholly financed by the most progressive possible combination of cuts in available income tax expenditures. If spending cuts were used as a form of partial financing for the rate cuts listed above, the precise distributional effects would depend on the composition of the cuts and which programs and government functions were reduced. It is likely, however, that cutting spending would make the plan even more regressive because government spending tends to benefit low- and middle-income households more than tax preferences do.

More... (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf)

The whole report (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf) is just 20 pages. Read the first few pages for yourself to see if you think they were fair in their review of Romney's tax plan.

Meanwhile, Obama has a new teevee ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1D1jI61ckY) about the tax report.

[Parkbandit]

In Maryland state tax is 6% for general sales and a special 9% on alcohol. Do people drive to north Virginia to buy beer? Bet your ass they do. We all game the system. It's in our nature to. Lets level out the playing field so we can take the conflict out of the equation.

You just illustrated one of the main principles of the Tea Party Movement.

Well done.

[Latrinsorm]

Both campaigns have now responded to my post from this morning about the tax report.I thought this was a funny line.

[ClydeR]

In a conference call today, Romney's spox condemned the study as a "joke" because it failed to account for the supply-side economic boost from lowering tax rates.

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/02/mitt-romney-campaign-defends-tax-plan-calls-critical-study-joke/V8GTn1448ZbXWbEpSeDykI/story.html


Thinking back with the help of Google, I remember that Romney's current explanation is consistent with what Romney said when he introduced his current tax plan at Ford Field in Michigan last February..


Speaking to what may have been the smallest crowd in the history of Ford Field, the home of the Detroit Lions, Mitt Romney today followed the second rule. Revising the fifty-nine-point economic plan he unveiled last September, which proved about as inspiring as an old C-SPAN tape, the Mittster promised to slash income-tax rates by a fifth. Under his new proposal, the top rate of thirty-five per cent would be lowered to twenty-eight per cent; the second top rate of thirty-three percent would be cut to twenty-six percent; and so on down to the bottom rate of ten per cent, which would be reduced to eight per cent.

Channelling Ronald Reagan, Arthur Laffer, George W. Bush, and other patron saints of supply-side economics, Romney declared, “By reducing the tax on the next dollar of income earned by all taxpayers, we will encourage hard work, risk-taking, and productivity by allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn.”

Romney didn’t completely junk his old plan, in which he had pledged to cut the tax rate on corporate profits from thirty-five per cent to twenty-five per cent, abolish the inheritance tax, and maintain Bush’s fifteen-per-cent rate on capital gains and dividends—and abolish it completely for people who earn less than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year. All these costly giveaways hold over to his new plan, where they have been supplemented with an across-the-board proposal to slash income taxes.

If you recall some of your grade-school arithmetic classes, where adding two negative numbers together gave you a larger negative number, you might suspect that cutting taxes for workers, businesses, investors, and dead people would produce a bigger gap between revenues and spending. This is the arithmetic that non-partisan budget experts are using when they estimate that Romney’s tax proposals would cost the U.S. Treasury somewhere between $4 trillion and $6 trillion over the next decade. But it’s also a misleading and unreliable type of arithmetic—according to Romney, anyway. “These changes will not add to the deficits,” he said with an impressively straight face. “Stronger economic growth, spending cuts, and base broadening will offset the reductions.”

More... (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/02/romneys-new-tax-plan-big-bold-and-desperate.html)

[Furryrat]

...but it’s also a misleading and unreliable type of arithmetic—according to Romney, anyway. “These changes will not add to the deficits,” he said with an impressively straight face. “Stronger economic growth, spending cuts, and base broadening will offset the reductions.”

Sounds about right to me.

[Warriorbird]

...but it’s also a misleading and unreliable type of arithmetic—according to Romney, anyway. “These changes will not add to the deficits,” he said with an impressively straight face. “Stronger economic growth, spending cuts, and base broadening will offset the reductions.”

Sounds about right to me.

Don't stop believing!

[crb]

Why are we not surprised? The rich are greedy and shriek at having to pay their fair share.

Its not about rich or poor. Its about being decent.

What is a fair share? Suppose the top 1% earned 20% of all AGI (adjusted gross income) in this country in 2008 (which is the number). So 1% of people earned 20% of all income. What would be a fair share of their taxes?

If you answered 38.02% you would have guessed the exact number they did pay, so while they made a ton of income, they paid almost double that in taxes. An effective tax rate of 23.27%

In the same year the subsection between 50% and 75%, if 50% was average, these people were above average. This group earned 21.62% of all income in the country, what would be a fair share for them to pay in taxes? If you said 12.24% you would be right. Almost HALF their income share. An effective tax rate of just 9.29%. And these are still above average people.

Now, if you look at the entire bottom 50% they made 12.75% of the nation's income, but paid only 2.7% of the tax burden. An effective tax rate of just 2.59%.

So, the rich 1% pay 10x a higher effective tax rate (rounding) than the bottom 50%. They pay roughly what? 35X the tax burden of the entire bottom 50% (despite being made up of 2% the number of people), but they only make like 80% more income. So, that is how progressive our system is right now. The top 1% if 2% the population of the bottom 50% and they make 80% more income than the bottom 50%, but they pay 3500% more of the taxes with a tax rate approximate 1000% higher. (and yes, all numbers rounded and ballparked).

What is more, it has gotten worse since 2008, and by worse I mean even more lopsided, because, dundundun, rich people lose more income in recessions than poor people. Volatility in income vastly increases the higher your income is, which is why building a government on such a narrow tax base is unreliable and stupid, as California is finding out. In 2010, the 1%'s share of national income had dropped 20% to 16%, tax burden did not follow suit.

So, okay, if you want to say rich people aren't paying a fair share, fucking pick a number. Don't be a douche like Obummer and just keep attacking a group of people like they're criminals, put a number out there. If paying double your income in tax burden isn't enough, pick a fucking number. Tell me what a fair share is, why don't you define a fair share for each quintile while you're at it. Let us know how you define "fair."

Personally, I think if you make 20% of the income you should pay 20% of the taxes. I would call that fair, but hey, maybe you're different.

Also, the Tax Policy Center is not nonpartisan, they're left, not hard left, but left, EVERYONE knows that. Just like the Tax Foundation is right.

[Bobmuhthol]

Personally, I think if you make 20% of the income you should pay 20% of the taxes. I would call that fair, but hey, maybe you're different.

WOAH HOLD ON THERE MR. REGRESSIVE, WHY ARE YOU SUGGESTING A REGRESSIVE POLICY?

[Tgo01]

So, okay, if you want to say rich people aren't paying a fair share, fucking pick a number. Don't be a douche like Obummer and just keep attacking a group of people like they're criminals, put a number out there. If paying double your income in tax burden isn't enough, pick a fucking number. Tell me what a fair share is, why don't you define a fair share for each quintile while you're at it. Let us know how you define "fair."

I think top 20% of earners in the country should pay 100% of the tax burden, the 80% pays no federal taxes. That's how trickle up economics work right?

I really have nothing, I just want to pay less taxes.

[crb]

WOAH HOLD ON THERE MR. REGRESSIVE, WHY ARE YOU SUGGESTING A REGRESSIVE POLICY?[/COLOR]

Its not regressive. Your share of income taxes grows with your share of income, the exact definition of progressive. I just think it should be a 1:1 relationship.

Also, I wouldn't propose getting rid of all deductions (though I would can all credits). I would keep the standard deduction/dependent deduction. Which, as a flat number, affects lower income earners to a greater percentage, which makes the system further progressive. I would also add a health insurance credit, which would be the only credit I would have, which also as a flat number would influence rates as above.

I just don't see a need for us to have the most progressive system in the developed world, and at the same time a president who wants to make it more so. And I have a moral problem with any tax system in which anyone, let alone 50% of voters, pay no net income taxes.

[Bobmuhthol]

Your share of income taxes grows with your share of income, the exact definition of progressive.

Who taught you the definition of progressive? Like, this is ridiculously not correct.

[msconstrew]

[blah blah blah, meaningless statistics with no backing, complaining about the "rich" losing money, implications that the middle class/poor should bear more of the burden because they use more public services, implication that he is rich enough to actually be affected by these changes, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum] . . . rich people lose more income in recessions than poor people. . . . [more meaningless statistics, a challenge to "pick a number" (meaning percentage) even though the demand, on its face, is intellectually disingenuous, and then the assumption that EVERYONE knows something about a tax policy organization

Yes. It is true. Rich people lose more income during recessions than poor people. This is because rich people have more money to lose than poor people, by definition. And isn't it funny how the tax issue mirrors the income loss issue. Let's say I have passive investments that generally early 8-10% per year during non-recession periods, and that that amount translates to approximately $100k in income to me per year. Let's say I invested poorly, and that over the last two years I've "only" made $50k in passive income because of the recession. Well, Chief, you're right - I'm making less, but I'm still making quite a lot, and it's all passive so I'm earning it on top of my salary.

Now, let's look at someone who's low-income ("poor" is kind of a derogatory term, if you didn't know, not that I think you'd care). They make probably no passive income through investment. But they lost their job due to the recession. They only made $30k per year.

<insert outraged tone here> MY GOD. THIS RECESSION IS MAKING ME LOSE MORE MONEY THAN POOR PEOPLE!

It's so true, CRB. The point is that "rich" people have more wiggle room if and when they lose money due to, and during, a recession. Comparing the effects of a recession on poor and rich people misses the point that, I think, is at the bottom of the taxation debate: who can, and should, bear the burden? People with higher incomes, people with higher net worths, and people with better education, jobs, and salaries are going to be able to bear the burden better than people who don't have all or some of those things (generally). Everyone wants to yell and scream about how taxing the rich ruins "job creation" - how does taxing PERSONAL wealth affect CORPORATE decisions? As far as I am concerned, it's a false dichotomy spread by people who are either intentionally spreading misinformation or who just don't give a shit.

[crb]

Yes. It is true. Rich people lose more income during recessions than poor people. This is because rich people have more money to lose than poor people, by definition. And isn't it funny how the tax issue mirrors the income loss issue. Let's say I have passive investments that generally early 8-10% per year during non-recession periods, and that that amount translates to approximately $100k in income to me per year. Let's say I invested poorly, and that over the last two years I've "only" made $50k in passive income because of the recession. Well, Chief, you're right - I'm making less, but I'm still making quite a lot, and it's all passive so I'm earning it on top of my salary.

Now, let's look at someone who's low-income ("poor" is kind of a derogatory term, if you didn't know, not that I think you'd care). They make probably no passive income through investment. But they lost their job due to the recession. They only made $30k per year.

<insert outraged tone here> MY GOD. THIS RECESSION IS MAKING ME LOSE MORE MONEY THAN POOR PEOPLE!

It's so true, CRB. The point is that "rich" people have more wiggle room if and when they lose money due to, and during, a recession. Comparing the effects of a recession on poor and rich people misses the point that, I think, is at the bottom of the taxation debate: who can, and should, bear the burden? People with higher incomes, people with higher net worths, and people with better education, jobs, and salaries are going to be able to bear the burden better than people who don't have all or some of those things (generally). Everyone wants to yell and scream about how taxing the rich ruins "job creation" - how does taxing PERSONAL wealth affect CORPORATE decisions? As far as I am concerned, it's a false dichotomy spread by people who are either intentionally spreading misinformation or who just don't give a shit.

What are you, an idiot?

What was peak unemployment? 100% of people did not lose their jobs. Even at the bottom of the recession ~88% of people were still working. So ya, rich people are hunt more than poor people in recessions. Do you know what that matters? Well suppose you decided to fund your state government to a large degree on income from capital gains from Internet millionaires. Stock options are not a reliable tax base, and when the market tanks by 50% your state revenue goes to 0, suddenly cities start declaring bankruptcy and the state has huge budget shortfalls. Of course I'm talking about California, but the same is true for the country as a whole. A narrow base of taxpayers who have very volatile income does not make for good government funding. Of course a rich person making $500k instead of $1m is still well off, but that doesn't make them a reliable source of tax revenue. Which is the point, isn't it? Is tax policy to be used to fund the government or to punish successful people?

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

Also, you don't understand how raising taxes, on anyone, including the well off, hurts jobs? Do you remember when clinton cut the luxury tax (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2011/jul/14/debt-ceiling-taxes-and-endless-liberal-lies/)? Why, to help out rich people? Or because all the blue collar workers building boats lost jobs? What happens to people who build Cadillacs? But that is beside the point. Any business classified as a sole proprietor ship, S-Corp, or LLC, which are all small businesses, pay taxes on business profits at personal income tax rates. You don't understand how raising personal income taxes affects businesses? There you go, now you can't claim ignorance as an excuse. Obama likes to claim most small businesses don't make that much money, and he is correct, if you treat every small business equally, including one employee lawn care companies and one employee daycare services and one employee ebay businesses. Businesses with any appreciable amount of workers make far more than 250k a year, especially fast growing businesses which create the most new jobs.

But even that is all beside the point. If you want to raise taxes to punish the rich or redistribute wealth, admit it, say that is your reason, and live with it. If you want to pretend you're Obummer and imply that it'll help the economy you need a reality check. To support raising taxes you are implicitly saying that the government can more efficiently spend a dollar than the person or business that earned it. If you honestly believe that, you're an idiot, the government, because of bureaucratic redundancy and moral hazard is the most inefficient spender of money in our society. They move slow and overpay for everything. Is it better for a business who earns $1 to spend it or for it to be taxed so it can be given to Solyndra or fund a GSA junket or disappear in Iraq?

There is a reason Obama 2 years ago, when the economy was actually growing faster than now, said the economy was too shaky to raise taxes on anyone, taxes retard economic growth, everyone knows this. The only reason Obama changed his mind is political.

The fact is our tax system is extremely progressive, more progressive than all or most of Europe, and has been made more and more progressive over the years, including by the Bush tax cuts. The rich are certainly paying their fair share.

[Tgo01]

What was peak unemployment? 100% of people did not lose their jobs. Even at the bottom of the recession ~88% of people were still working.

Right now the underemployment rate (unemployed plus those not working full time but want to) is about 18%. I know being "underemployed" is not as bad as being unemployed but it's still pretty significant to someone who has bills to pay and doesn't have money in the bank to draw from.

So, yeah, 100% of people didn't lose their jobs but a whole heck of a lot more than 12% of people were affected by the recession.

[crb]

Oh, by the way, Christine Romer, Obummer's former head economic adviser, published a study after leaving the WH showing that for every 1% increase in taxes you lose 3% of GDP.

http://mercatus.org/features/balancing-budget-tax-increases-could-do-more-harm-good


Another thing to consider is income mobility, we actually have a lot of it in the US. Those evil rich people tend not to stay in the top brackets for long periods of time, most pass in and out over their lives. Middle class people often might have just a temporary windfall from selling a business or something that puts them up high for only a year.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/never-ever-trust-what-irs-says

By the way you can get really good statistics from the CBO

http://www.cbo.gov/topics/taxes/distribution-of-federal-taxes

And the IRS as well has spreadsheets.

Here is a nice chart from the left leaning Tax Policy Center, this includes payroll taxes.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/images/Share-of-Federal-Taxes-by-Income-Quintile-2010_2.gif

[crb]

Right now the underemployment rate (unemployed plus those not working full time but want to) is about 18%. I know being "underemployed" is not as bad as being unemployed but it's still pretty significant to someone who has bills to pay and doesn't have money in the bank to draw from.

So, yeah, 100% of people didn't lose their jobs but a whole heck of a lot more than 12% of people were affected by the recession.

But the quintile that experienced the largest percentage drop in income, was by far, the top quintile. That is a fact you can get from the IRS. Not that we need to feel sorry for rich people, but it illustrates how unreliable a narrow base is and how income inequality has actually gone down since the recession started, despite what Obummer might say on the stump.

[Bobmuhthol]

The fact is our tax system is extremely progressive, more progressive than all or most of Europe, and has been made more and more progressive over the years, including by the Bush tax cuts. The rich are certainly paying their fair share.
The fact is the richest people in the United States are generally much richer than the richest people in all of Europe, and the effective tax rate on those people in the United States with more money is substantially less than those people in Europe with less money. That's the fact. You can talk about regressive and progressive things all day, every day, but you're still (either intentionally or not, I couldn't care less) making insanely biased arguments that ignore facts. Besides, calling the United States tax system "more progressive" is stupid, which I can say guilt-free since you just called msconstrew an idiot. All else is not equal, so you can't just point at one fucking metric and declare who's "more progressive."

And like I said in my last post, you don't even understand what progressive means. You literally suggested a regressive policy and you have a long history of clamoring about how regressive things are evil (which I agree with -- but I also know the definition of the term).


That is a fact you can get from the IRS. Not that we need to feel sorry for rich people, but it illustrates how unreliable a narrow base is and how income inequality has actually gone down since the recession started, despite what Obummer might say on the stump.
So what you're saying is the government should collect the same absolute amount of tax dollars every year, regardless of economic activity, and therefore we're all fucked when GDP falls because we have to still pay taxes as if it didn't?

[Bobmuhthol]

Right now the underemployment rate (unemployed plus those not working full time but want to) is about 18%. I know being "underemployed" is not as bad as being unemployed but it's still pretty significant to someone who has bills to pay and doesn't have money in the bank to draw from.

So, yeah, 100% of people didn't lose their jobs but a whole heck of a lot more than 12% of people were affected by the recession.
Nobody really cares all that much about U6, but what is important is that the unemployment rate does not reflect people who have not actively sought employment in the last 4 or 6 weeks, I forget what the survey asks, and thus are not included in the labor force and therefore not unemployed. Such people might include discouraged workers and people close to retirement who don't see a reason to waste time looking for a job for 3 years when they're going to retire in 4. As far as affecting "people," again, the unemployment rate measures only people in the labor force, and that's roughly 1/3 of the population (if I'm off don't pull the numbers and argue with me please [for your sake], my last memory is a labor force of about 100 million). Many more people are affected by unemployment than the number of unemployed.

[Latrinsorm]

What are you, an idiot?Well that's settled, then! Argument over, high fives all around.

Also crb, your English in the last two posts has been distractingly fractured. Whatever it is (phone posting, day drinking) I hope you get over it.

[ClydeR]

Bloomberg summarizes the new tax report as clearly as I've seen anywhere..


The problem with Romney's claim is that TPC could find no way to make those numbers pencil. Romney has promised to cut earned income tax rates by 20 percent across the board, and also to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. Even if you eliminate every non-investment tax preference enjoyed by wealthy people, that still leaves them with a tax cut. (Romney has pledged to preserve tax preferences for investment.)

If your tax plan is revenue-neutral, as Romney's campaign sometimes says his plan is, and it cuts taxes on somebody, it has to raise taxes on somebody else. The arithmetic is pretty simple -- the Romney plan has to cut taxes on the rich, and therefore it has to raise taxes on somebody else.

More... (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-03/romney-s-worst-tax-secret.html)


And what's wrong with making the poor and middle class pay more taxes? As Certain People (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?61945-51-don-t-pay-taxes-also-the-US-taxes-the-quot-rich-quot-more-than-other-developed-nations&p=1280137) have pointed out, too many slackers get by without paying any taxes. It's time to change that. Surely you remember how it was a big issue in the Republican primary.

[ClydeR]

A Tampa Bay Times editorial says, "Romney's tax plan crunches middle class."


The numbers speak volumes about the Romney campaign's priorities. While President Barack Obama is proposing that taxes rise on the wealthiest Americans by letting the Bush tax cuts lapse only for those with incomes of $250,000 or more, Romney would flip that formula and give further breaks to the nation's millionaires, people who are already paying the lowest effective tax rate in 60 years.

The Romney camp attacked the messenger as politically biased since one of the three authors had worked in the Obama White House. But previously the Romney campaign had promoted the center's work as providing an "objective, third-party analysis," and the center is directed by a former economic adviser to Republican President George W. Bush.

More... (http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1244067.ece)

If Romney doesn't get on top of this -- and do it quickly -- he's going to be in big trouble.

[Parkbandit]

The Tampa Bay Times is a liberal rag. This is the same paper that gave us the poorly named "Politifact" check. It's more biased than MSNBC and Fox News.

[ClydeR]

The Tampa Bay Times is a liberal rag. This is the same paper that gave us the poorly named "Politifact" check. It's more biased than MSNBC and Fox News.

But that's where the Republican convention will be this year.

Tell me this, PB. Do you think it's mathematically possible to remain revenue neutral, as Romney says his plan will do, while reducing tax rates across the board by 20% and then eliminating enough deductions to make up the difference, without increasing the taxes paid by middle class taxpayers? Everybody who looks at it says the only way to remain revenue neutral, even after eliminating every single deduction for the wealthy, is to reduce deductions available for the middle class taxpayers to the point that their tax bill will be higher, even after taking account of the 20% rate reduction.

As far as I can tell, all of the fact checkers say Romney is lying.


Factcheck.org (http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/)

Politifact.com (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/03/barack-obama/obama-romney-would-cut-millionaires-taxes/)

Washington Post Fact Checker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-tough-new-obama-ad-that----surprise----is-accurate/2012/08/02/gJQAuigQSX_blog.html)

Do you know of anybody who has concluded that Romney is being honest?

[Parkbandit]

But that's where the Republican convention will be this year.

Tell me this, PB. Do you think it's mathematically possible to remain revenue neutral, as Romney says his plan will do, while reducing tax rates across the board by 20% and then eliminating enough deductions to make up the difference, without increasing the taxes paid by middle class taxpayers? Everybody who looks at it says the only way to remain revenue neutral, even after eliminating every single deduction for the wealthy, is to reduce deductions available for the middle class taxpayers to the point that their tax bill will be higher, even after taking account of the 20% rate reduction.

As far as I can tell, all of the fact checkers say Romney is lying.

I haven't really looked at it to be honest, but when you offer up a source like the Tampa Bay Times as a source, I'll laugh and point out how slanted it's "reporting" is, because I've read more of their editorials than probably anyone on this forum. They are SOLIDLY left and their "news" stories illustrate their close affiliation with the DNC.

[Latrinsorm]

I haven't really looked at it to be honest, but when you offer up a source like the Tampa Bay Times as a source, I'll laugh and point out how slanted it's "reporting" is, because I've read more of their editorials than probably anyone on this forum. They are SOLIDLY left and their "news" stories illustrate their close affiliation with the DNC.In that case, it should be very easy to show in which specific ways their conclusions are inaccurate, no?

[Parkbandit]

In that case, it should be very easy to show in which specific ways their conclusions are inaccurate, no?

So, the definition of biased is now inaccurate. Good to know for the future. When did that definition come into being?

[ClydeR]

If Romney doesn't get on top of this -- and do it quickly -- he's going to be in big trouble.

That was a good call on my part. Really good.


(CNN) – Legendary outlaw Robin Hood has suddenly assumed a featured role in the 2012 presidential campaign.

Adding a new attack line on Monday to his stump speech, the president railed against rival Mitt Romney's tax proposals, saying they amount to "Robin Hood in reverse."

"It's Romney Hood," the president added to loud applause from 500 supporters in a Stamford, Connecticut ballroom.

More... (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/06/obama-debuts-romney-hood/)

[Latrinsorm]

So, the definition of biased is now inaccurate. Good to know for the future. When did that definition come into being?Help me understand your thought process, then.

1. ClydeR presented us with a news article containing factual claims.
2. You said the news paper was biased.

Why?

[Parkbandit]

Help me understand your thought process, then.

Getting you to understand much of anything except perhaps what color toenail polish goes with your pink dress would be nothing short of a miracle.



1. ClydeR presented us with a news article containing factual claims.
2. You said the news paper was biased.

Why?

For normal people, it's pretty self explanatory from this post:


I haven't really looked at it to be honest, but when you offer up a source like the Tampa Bay Times as a source, I'll laugh and point out how slanted it's "reporting" is, because I've read more of their editorials than probably anyone on this forum. They are SOLIDLY left and their "news" stories illustrate their close affiliation with the DNC.

[ClydeR]

There's an update (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001631) to the earlier report. The update addresses questions raised about the earlier report. The update reaches the same conclusion.