Not only is Jennifer Rubin rMoney's biggest shill, like rMoney, she's a shameless liar
Tax plans and tax spin
By Jennifer Rubin
My colleague Greg Sargent insists that by Mitt Romney saying “The president’s ad saying I’m gonna raise taxes on the middle class? That’s patently, simply false,” Romney is admitting his plan won’t be revenue neutral. Not only does Romney not say that, but that very broad proposition is not supported by the left-leaning Tax Policy Center study released last week.
Like the Simpson-Bowles plan, Romney’s plan wants to lower individual tax rates. To do that he will broaden the base (take away all or part of the personal exemption and/or deductions that reduce the income on which you pay taxes, i.e., “taxable income”). Simpson-Bowles did this same exercise and maintained progressivity just as Romney’s plan would. The difference is that Romney uses all the “savings” from base broadeners to lower the tax rates for all taxpayers while Simpson-Bowles used part of that to reduce the debt.
The lower rates are “paid” for in Romney’s proposal by eliminating deductions. The progressivity is maintained by taking away more of the deductions and exemptions from the rich than from lower-income taxpayers. This, incidentally, was the same concept at play in the 1986 tax reform bill. (More about that below.)
<snip>
Romney supporters would also argue that Romney’s corporate rate cuts are pro-growth. That is, they would raise additional revenue. And, of course, if we get past the Obama recession and see more people get jobs, this also would affect both the total tax revenue and the distribution of the tax burden under Romney’s plan. But quite apart from these general policy assertions, TPC’s study doesn’t prove what Obama spinners would like it to.
<snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/tax-plans-and-tax-spin/2012/08/04/d9fe2346-ddac-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_blog.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
