$17K of deductions or $17K of taxes offset by deductions?

[cthulu2016]

re: Mitt saying he might cap deductions at $17,000.

Capping deductions at $17,000 would eliminate the charitable contribution deduction for almost all charitable giving by the rich, and would cut into the home mortgage interest deduction for a lot of people. (I would think a recent $1800/month mortgage probably reaches that level.) And I would hope there are a lot of people with pretty big state income and property taxes to deduct.

On the other hand, capping tax savings from deductions at $17,000 would probably only affect pretty darn well-off people. But I can't believe that would even begin to offset a 20% across the board rate cut, right?

Anyone have insights?

[Lex]

1. He's probably not talking about passively earned income so he'd be off the hook

for the most part, right?

[BlueStreak]

3. Ryan's plan taxes cap gains at 0%

so if Romney took that part of Ryan's plan, he'd be paying essentially zero taxes and he wouldn't even have to run illegal offshore tax scams to do that. Think of that is a way to let our billionaires be more honest.

[BlueStreak]

2. I think he said "deductions" and that's not enough money by any stretch

to offset a 20% reduction in tax rates. If he's going to allow $17K of tax reduction, then that is even farther from being revenue neutral. Neither one works.

And as I interpreted his statement, the personal exemption, standard deduction and exemptions for dependents would all be under that cap. A family of 4 could add up to about $17K before even looking at mortgage deduction, medical expenses, charity, state tax deduction, etc, so that would really hurt somebody who had big medical bills. However most households wouldn't hit the $17K cap, so I don't see any way that could cover a 20% reduction in tax rates.

[LiberalFighter]

4. 2012

$11,900 -- Standard Deduction
$15,200 -- Personal Exemptions for family of 4
------------------------------------------------
$27,100 -- Total Income Exempt

[BlueStreak]

5. So basically this would penalize anybody with kids

I don't have any dependents, but I can't see that flying. That sounds ultra-regressive.

I can't believe we are a good 6 months into his revolutionary tax proposal and we are still playing guessing games.

[LiberalFighter]

10. That is the minimum a family would have exempt from taxes.

If they were to itemize they could reduce their liability even further.

[reformist2]

6. Romney seems to have upper-middle income homeowners in his crosshairs... i.e., his core constituency

It's complete madness. Once his supporters realize the ramifications of what he suggested, there's going to be an uproar. Mittens will have to retract his words, unless he wants to lose in a 60%/40% blowout.

[jmowreader]

7. 17K of deductions, as far as I can tell

It doesn't matter either way; he is planning on cutting tax rates, eliminating his own tax bill by zeroing-out the capital gains rate, and quadrupling defense spending, so no matter what he does--INCLUDING ENDING ALL SOCIAL PROGRAMS--he can't balance the budget.

[BlueStreak]

8. When has a Republican EVER balanced the budget?

I'm not sure he has even said he would do that, but we know in fact he would not.

Any Republican talk about balanced budgets is bullshit. That's not their strategy. In this video, Thom Hartmann clearly explains the real strategy. It is really important that everybody understand this. it explains most of what they have put us through these past 30 years.

[jmowreader]

9. Eisenhower was probably the last

In today's politics Eisenhower would be a centrist Democrat.

Romney claims he wants to balance it, even tho he needs an unbalanced budget to kill social spending.