Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Rmoney's plan is likely to bankrupt the country and sell it off to the highest bidders
Call it the Rmoney-Bain plan, no revenues needed, just give the money to the rich and sell out everyone else.
It’s easy to promise everyone huge tax cuts
By Greg Sargent
We keep hearing that the Buffett Rule is “gimmickry.” Well, speaking of gimmickry...
One of the most important things to emerge from Mitt Romney’s overheard remarks at the Florida fundraiser is he finally shared a few specifics as to how he would pay for the massive tax cuts he’d impose as president.
Romney has said that his plan to cut taxes by 20 percent across the board will be revenue neutral — that the tax cuts would be paid for through a combination of eliminating loopholes and deductions, combined with new revenues generated by economic growth. But he hasn’t publicly said which loopholes or deductions he’d eliminate to do this.
At the fundraiser, Romney opened up to his donors a bit about this:
Okay, so how much of the cost of Romney’s tax cuts would be covered by the elimination of these deductions?
Only one-tenth, according to a tax expert I spoke to today.
The Tax Policy Center has estimated that Romney’s tax cuts would cost $480 billion in revenue in 2015, relative to current policy, and could even grow in the years after that. The Tax Policy Center’s Roberton Williams tells me that by his estimate, the measures Romney identified in his chat with donors would save between $45 billion and $50 billion in 2015.
That still leaves more than $400 billion per year in unpaid-for tax cuts, Williams says.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/its-easy-to-promise-everyone-huge-tax-cuts/2012/04/18/gIQAj587QT_blog.html
By Greg Sargent
We keep hearing that the Buffett Rule is “gimmickry.” Well, speaking of gimmickry...
One of the most important things to emerge from Mitt Romney’s overheard remarks at the Florida fundraiser is he finally shared a few specifics as to how he would pay for the massive tax cuts he’d impose as president.
Romney has said that his plan to cut taxes by 20 percent across the board will be revenue neutral — that the tax cuts would be paid for through a combination of eliminating loopholes and deductions, combined with new revenues generated by economic growth. But he hasn’t publicly said which loopholes or deductions he’d eliminate to do this.
At the fundraiser, Romney opened up to his donors a bit about this:
“I’m going to probably eliminate for high income people the second home mortgage deduction,” Romney said, adding that he would also likely eliminate deductions for state income and property taxes as well.
Okay, so how much of the cost of Romney’s tax cuts would be covered by the elimination of these deductions?
Only one-tenth, according to a tax expert I spoke to today.
The Tax Policy Center has estimated that Romney’s tax cuts would cost $480 billion in revenue in 2015, relative to current policy, and could even grow in the years after that. The Tax Policy Center’s Roberton Williams tells me that by his estimate, the measures Romney identified in his chat with donors would save between $45 billion and $50 billion in 2015.
That still leaves more than $400 billion per year in unpaid-for tax cuts, Williams says.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/its-easy-to-promise-everyone-huge-tax-cuts/2012/04/18/gIQAj587QT_blog.html
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
The GOP is as pissed off as we are about the economy and this is the best they've got? Are you fucking kidding me? They honestly think Uncle Moneybags is going do a better job of fixing the economy than Obama has? He's going to make things far worse than they already are if anything.
