About This Blog
Very busy this week, again.
I've been thinking about something for a couple of weeks, and so today seems like the day to share. Is it not true that Mitt and Paul's tax reform plan.....whatever the heck it is after last week's debate turnabout....is, by god, "not going to add to the deficit?" Mitt Romney's only consistency when talking about his tax reform plan seems to be that it will be "revenue neutral." Can we at least all agree that Romney is for revenue neutrality in whatever his tax reform plan is?
Revenue neutral means that no additional tax revenues will come into the Treasury as a result of whatever Romney's tax reform plan actually is. Maybe the revenue neutral part will also disappear from Romney's tax reform plan as well....who would know.....but for now, let's go out on a limb and start from the premise that Mitt is telling the truth about his plan being revenue neutral.
So, no new revenues will come into the federal government as a result of Romney's tax reform plan. It would also follow, then, that Romney's tax reform plan, as such, is not meant to reduce deficits. No new revenue in the tax reform plan to pay down debt or deficits....right? Whatever Romney's plan is, he has been clear that it can't add to the deficit....but it also cannot pay down debt because it's revenue neutral. No new tax revenue generated.
Okay. Now, what does Mitt want to do? Cut income tax rates across the board by 20%, including for the top 1%. The purpose for the tax cuts, according to Romney, is to "create jobs." At the same time, however, Romney says he will "offset" the loss in revenue to the government in reducing income tax rates "across the board" by eliminating tax deductions, deductions which primarily go to benefit the wealthy.
Cut income tax rates and then eliminate tax deductions for a net gain to the Treasury of....ZERO. Again, to what end are the tax cuts with the simultaneous tax deduction eliminations? "To create jobs." I'm trying to be fair to Mr. Romney here.
Now, here's the part I've been thinking about for awhile. And quite frankly....I just don;t get it. If the purpose of Romney's plan is to create jobs.....and Romney's path to creating jobs is through lowering income tax rates across the board so that "job creators" have more money to hire new people with.....won't the rich "job creators", through the vehicle of Romney's elimination of tax deductions, still basically be paying the same amount in income taxes they had been paying before Romney's plan?
In other words....if we are to believe that cutting tax rates for the wealthy will allow those "job creators" to keep more of their own money with which they can then hire more people.....won't eliminating income tax deductions on those same wealthy "job creators" cancel out the extra "job creating" capital in the tax cuts? Won't the net gain to rich American "job creators" be.....ZERO?
If Romney's tax reform plan is revenue neutral.....and doesn't simply redistribute money to the wealthy.....how could it possibly change a thing regarding job creation? Seriously, I don't get it.
I am not a supply-side economics believer. But, if we take the voodoo seriously.....the voodoo says that if rich "job creators" keep more of their own money instead of giving it to government in taxation.....those rich "job creators" will have more wherewithal to hire more people. Isn't that what Republicans, and Romney, tell us all the time?
Okay then.....I need someone to explain to me how Romney's income tax reform plan, which cuts income tax rates for those rich "job creators" while negating those cuts for the rich through elimination of tax deductions for those same rich.....puts more money into the hands of rich "job creators."
According to what Romney has told us....and I realize that it is precarious to take anything Mr. Romney says, seriously.....but according to what he says, while income tax rates across the board will be cut if he's president, eliminating tax deductions will negate all the income tax cut gains to so-called job creators......the rich will be paying the same amount as they were before Romney's plan.
Where, then, is the incentive for all those rich "job creators" to bust off of those sidelines and hire more workers?
- 2013 (137)
- 2012 (265)
- 2011 (254)
- 2010 (274)
- 2009 (302)
- 2008 (331)
- 2007 (305)