Posted by Sir Four at 2:24pm Oct 19 '12Romney has been repeatedly stated his tax plan will not reduce federal revenue by $5 trillion because he will also reduce tax deductions. He has been repeatedly asked which deductions he would reduce, and can never give a straight answer.
The mortgage deduction?
Child tax credit?
Charitable giving?
Rather than eliminate anything specifically, his revised plan is to let you take these deductions up to a cap. He floated the idea of $17,000 as the cap. Then $17,000 became $25,000. Then even $50,000 was suggested. Any logic behind these figures? No, they're just pulled out of thin air.
The Tax Policy Center once again tried to run the numbers on Romney's plan. Assuming the lowest cap--$17,000--Romney's plan would only make up for $1.7 trillion of the $5 trillion lost. If we were to go with the $50,000 cap, it'd only cover $760 billion.
Romney also proposes to keep all Bush tax cuts in place, at a cost of another $2 trillion or so over ten years, whereas Obama wants to continue these cuts only for income below $250,000/year (which would cost about $1 trillion).
Romney also proposes to increase military spending by several trillion dollars over ten years.
It's not that Romney's bad math is just a little off. It's that it's off by upwards of $7 or $8 trillion. How can any of this be treated like a legitimate proposal at all? It's one thing for politicians to lie; they all do it. But you cannot lie about math. You cannot say you'll reduce the deficit while passing large tax cuts and large spending increases. "We promise we'll work out the details after the election." Sure you will. You'll find $7 trillion laying around somewhere to pay for this.
The mortgage deduction?
Child tax credit?
Charitable giving?
Rather than eliminate anything specifically, his revised plan is to let you take these deductions up to a cap. He floated the idea of $17,000 as the cap. Then $17,000 became $25,000. Then even $50,000 was suggested. Any logic behind these figures? No, they're just pulled out of thin air.
The Tax Policy Center once again tried to run the numbers on Romney's plan. Assuming the lowest cap--$17,000--Romney's plan would only make up for $1.7 trillion of the $5 trillion lost. If we were to go with the $50,000 cap, it'd only cover $760 billion.
Romney also proposes to keep all Bush tax cuts in place, at a cost of another $2 trillion or so over ten years, whereas Obama wants to continue these cuts only for income below $250,000/year (which would cost about $1 trillion).
Romney also proposes to increase military spending by several trillion dollars over ten years.
It's not that Romney's bad math is just a little off. It's that it's off by upwards of $7 or $8 trillion. How can any of this be treated like a legitimate proposal at all? It's one thing for politicians to lie; they all do it. But you cannot lie about math. You cannot say you'll reduce the deficit while passing large tax cuts and large spending increases. "We promise we'll work out the details after the election." Sure you will. You'll find $7 trillion laying around somewhere to pay for this.