Why Does Mitt Romney Think There are No Mathematicians in the U.S.?

17 Oct

There are people that can work with numbers Mitt.

You should come to terms with that.

Ezra Klein can do math. He’s actually pretty good.

I’m sure that with Bain, you could tell your accountants and tax people that you wanted the numbers to add up to….. this.

And they would get them there somehow.

But you can’t threaten to fire the whole country. So, there are people who don’t really give a rat’s ass about what you “want”.

They, ….. and maybe you should sit down for this,…… will be looking for, – and at, –  the facts.    Truth.    Get used to it.

Who wins under Mitt Romney’s cap plan, in one chart

Despite its vagueness, Mitt Romney’s proposal to cap itemized deductions is prompting some insightful analyses from reputable think tanks. On Tuesday, Third Way released a report estimating that a $25,000 cap on deductions – the number Romney floated in that night’s presidential debate — would bring in only $730 billion over 10 years, a far cry from the $4.6 trillion needed for Romney’s tax cut plan to add up.

On Wednesday, the Tax Policy Center released numbers estimating that the cap would bring in $1.286 trillion in revenue over 10 years (more than Third Way’s estimate, but still not nearly enough to counterbalance Romney’s proposed tax cuts). The center also found that a $25,000 cap on deductions, combined with Romney’s rate cuts, would winding up lowering the tax bill for every income level.

That right there should tell you the plan doesn’t add up. It’s impossible to cut taxes for every single person and make up for it by simply capping deductions. The numbers also show that such a plan would mainly benefit top earners:

This is scaled according to how many people are in each group. The majority of Americans who make under $70,000 a year would get a tax cut of 0.13 percent to 1.07 percent. But those in the 95th percentile of earners, making $148,000 a year, would see a 2.6 percent cut. The top one percent and the top 0.1 percent of earners would get smaller cuts, owing to the large amount of deductions they currently claim, but they would still make out better than the bottom 90 percent as far as income tax relief.

So, in proposing the deductions cap, Romney breaks two of his campaign promises: revenue neutrality and no tax cut for the rich.


7 responses to “Why Does Mitt Romney Think There are No Mathematicians in the U.S.?

  1. G

    October 17, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    Tax revenues are not predicated on tax rates. Historically, regardless of tax rates, tax revenue runs about 18% of the GDP. Hence, the way to increase tax revenue is to grow the GDP. The best way to do that is lower taxes, a simplified tax code, and lessen the burden of regulations on small businesses.

  2. h2dog

    October 18, 2012 at 7:00 am

    Said George W Bush as he walked away with the place in flames.

    • G

      October 18, 2012 at 5:41 pm

      Bush has his share of the blame, but the economic problems facing America go far beyond GW. There are too many variables within economies for any central planning to work effectively and encourage broad prosperity. You can look up the history of GDP, tax rates, and revenues yourself and draw your own conclusions, but the evidence is easily understood. For a shortcut, you can read my blog from last week about the VP debate where sources and links are provided.

      I highly recommend you research the cause of economic bubbles and how they relate to the overall economy in relation to the Bush years. Other suggested research is of Friedrich Hayek’s and Ludwig von Mises’ economic philosophies.

      Knowledge is power. The truth sets us free.

  3. G

    October 20, 2012 at 8:01 am

    Over 670 economists have come out and joined together in support of Mitt Romney for president (economistsforromney dot com). Prominent names among the signatories are Robert Barro (Harvard), Michael Boskin (Stanford), Martin Feldstein (Harvard), Allan Meltzer (Carnegie Mellon) and John Taylor (Stanford).

    The group of economists signed a statement referencing Romney’s and Obama’s plans. They said that Romney’s economic plan was based on “a more contained and less intrusive federal government, a greater reliance on the private sector, a broad expansion of opportunity without government favors for special interests, and respect for the rule of law including the decision-making authority of states and localities.”

    They specifically endorsed Romney’s plan to reduce marginal tax rates and thereby broaden the tax base, ensure that federal spending not exceed 20% of GDP, and restructure regulation so as to end “too big to fail.”

    The economists blasted Obama for “increasing the size and scope of the federal government, which increases the debt, requires large tax increases, and burdens business with many new financial and health care regulations.”

    • h2dog

      October 20, 2012 at 8:18 am

      670 … that’s a big number. So, you’re telling me that there are people that believe in supply side economics. At Imagine that.
      A revelation. It has failed, and will fail again.
      Studies, studies, studies,…. Are these anything like the Paul Ryan blogposts he tried to pass off as studies? Likely.
      I prefer to take a look at the empirical side.
      And that has shown massive failure. Quite recently, if you’d like to bring it back to memory.
      Cutting taxes to help the robo-traders in the market will help the 1%,…. nobody else.

      • G

        October 20, 2012 at 9:03 am

        You are either a victim or a perpetrator of an ideology that runs counter to the founding principles of our country that allowed us to become the most powerful and free country on Earth. I highly suggest you study the economic philosophies of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Please research the cause of economic bubbles. By doing so, you’ll learn the housing bubble was primarily caused by the government subsidizing home ownership. We have an education bubble forming for the same reasons now, and unfortunately, both Obama & Romney will perpetuate it. But, that has to be a secondary concern as there are more pressing economic matters to contend with. If you visit my blog, you’ll see where I’ve written on such topics before and provide links to specific economists to support my stances.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: