c******g
发帖数: 1217 | 1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/24/ev
On “60 Minutes” last night, Mitt Romney said it again. “I want to keep
the current progressivity in the code. There should be no tax reduction for
high income people.”
You’ve heard Romney say this — or some variant of it –dozens of times
before. What’s changed since then is that Romney has admitted that his tax
cuts, if they’re not going to add to the deficit, will have to increase
taxes on people he defines as middle income and cut them on people he
defines as high income.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Evan Vucci/AP
Before we get to that admission, a quick refresher. Romney’s tax plan
proposes to cut tax rates by 20 percent. That would cost trillions of
dollars, and mean a particularly big tax cut for the rich.
But Romney promises his tax cut won’t cost anything, won’t raise taxes on
the middle class, won’t cut taxes on the rich, and won’t end the tax
breaks for savings and investment.
The Tax Policy Center, the gold standard in nonpartisan tax wonkery, looked
at the tax cut and these promises and declared the proposal “not
mathematically possible.” Since Romney doesn’t want to touch tax breaks
for savings and investment like the capital gains cut — a position he
reiterated last night on “60 Minutes” — there just isn’t enough money in
the remaining tax breaks for people making over $250,000 to pay for their
tax cuts.
For awhile, the Romney campaign had no answer to this. They just said they
didn’t believe the Tax Policy Center — called it biased, even though it’s
run by one of George W. Bush’s top economists.
Then, slowly, right-leaning economists and outlets began releasing their own
studies showing that, if you made some really, really questionable
assumptions, you could kinda sorta make Romney’s math look like it might
add up. And so you might have heard Romney say this to David Gregory on “
Meet the Press”:
The good news is that five different economic studies, including one at
Harvard and Princeton and AEI and a couple at The Wall Street Journal all
show that if we bring down our top rates and actually go across the board,
bring down rates for everyone in America, but also limit deductions and
exemptions for people at the high end, while you can keep the progressivity
in the code, you could remain revenue neutral and you create an enormous
incentive for growth in the economy.
The Harvard study was done by economist Martin Feldstein, and he makes a
very important decision in his paper. He writes, “I think it is very
reasonable to say that people in that high-income group” — by which means
people making over $100,000 — “are not the ‘middle class.’”
And so, under really, really unrealistic assumptions, he shows that the math
can kind of work, but that Romney’s policies would mean a really big tax
increase for people making between $100,000 and $250,000 in order to pay for
a big tax cut on people making more than $250,000. But that’s okay,
because people making over $100,000 are not in the middle class.
And Romney has been all over the place trumpeting this study, saying this
study shows his math works out. But then ABC’s George Stephanopoulos caught
him out:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?
MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.
For the record, I’m actually with Feldstein on this one: I think it’s
reasonable to say households making more than $100,000 are not middle income
. But Romney disagrees with me, and with Feldstein.
So the study Romney is promoting — the one he says is the study you should
be looking at — actually shows even under the most favorable assumptions
possible, he’s going to have to raise taxes on the people he defines as the
middle class. In saying that that study is credible, he has admitted he can
’t make his tax promises add up. And yet he constantly, repeatedly says the
opposite.
Romney has clearly calculated that there aren’t many people who read these
analyses. If he just keeps saying his tax plan can cut taxes on the rich
while cutting taxes on the middle class while not cutting taxes on the rich
while not costing a dime, eventually, his version of this will come to be
seen as the truth. And perhaps he’s right. But the numbers show what they
show. | c******g
发帖数: 1217 | 2 So, no t-bags want to talk about this? | y**********o
发帖数: 241 | 3 其实，就romney本身来讲，他应该是务实派，他做总统，估计不会比obama差。
但问题是共和党的极右化再加一个茶党，romney根本就是被劫持了。
for
tax
【在 c******g 的大作中提到】
: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/24/ev
: On “60 Minutes” last night, Mitt Romney said it again. “I want to keep
: the current progressivity in the code. There should be no tax reduction for
: high income people.”
: You’ve heard Romney say this — or some variant of it –dozens of times
: before. What’s changed since then is that Romney has admitted that his tax
: cuts, if they’re not going to add to the deficit, will have to increase
: taxes on people he defines as middle income and cut them on people he
: defines as high income.
: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Evan Vucci/AP
| s********t
发帖数: 4150 | 4 Fine with me, as long as he shuts down the entitlement programs and kick out
the amigos.
for
tax
【在 c******g 的大作中提到】
: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/24/ev
: On “60 Minutes” last night, Mitt Romney said it again. “I want to keep
: the current progressivity in the code. There should be no tax reduction for
: high income people.”
: You’ve heard Romney say this — or some variant of it –dozens of times
: before. What’s changed since then is that Romney has admitted that his tax
: cuts, if they’re not going to add to the deficit, will have to increase
: taxes on people he defines as middle income and cut them on people he
: defines as high income.
: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Evan Vucci/AP
| y****t
发帖数: 10233 | 5 why you are so obsessed with his mother?
【在 c******g 的大作中提到】
: So, no t-bags want to talk about this?
| c******g
发帖数: 1217 | 6 Cause she lived on welfare, haha
【在 y****t 的大作中提到】
: why you are so obsessed with his mother?
| c******g
发帖数: 1217 | 7 Romney's mother lived on welfare, this government blood sucker! | c******g
发帖数: 1217 | 8 Yellow t-bags shithead is so terrified that Romney's father is welfare
recipient. haha. | c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 9 发信人: chichazi (吃叉子), 信区: USANews
标 题: 支持民主党原来是为了能嫖白鸡
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Sep 27 14:01:35 2012, 美东)
发信人: chichazi (吃叉子), 信区: USANews
标 题: Re: 这里的辩论能影响几张票？
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Sep 26 10:17:01 2012, 美东)
请详述左棍保障你嫖白鸡的事实依据。你的意思是不是左棍大政府发你食品券，你才可
以用hood money解决生理问题？
呵呵 |
|
