Skip to main content

View Diary: Mitt Romney reveals his magical tax plan math. And it looks just like Bush's. (152 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Eliminating capital gains? Really? (15+ / 0-)

    I didn't hear that.  If that's true, that's how the scumbag let's the rich out of his deduction box.  Almost all of Mitt's income was from capital gains, as is most income for the rich.

    You are absolutely right that we need 1 good journalist to pin him down on this, or Biden better hammer Ryan on this tomorrow night and not let up.

    •  The job, at least initially, goes to Biden, (10+ / 0-)

      because eliminating the cap gains tax, as well as the estate tax, are major points in Ryan's plan, which Romney endorses and which would pass a Republican House in a heartbeat.

      Nobody in the MSM, at least on TV - with the exception of Ezra Klein - knows enough about these plans to ask questions and not let R&R double-talk the answers.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 09:02:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is a fallacy there I've not heard discussed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SueDe

        The ideas that Romney and other conservatives push for treating cap  gains differently is that they have already been taxed at the corporate level. Notwithstanding whether one takes the idea of corporate taxation seriously given how so many big companies pay little tax, there is no one-to-one correspondence between corporate income and capital gains.

        Sure, dividends reflect profits that would be subject tot eh tax system, much capital gain ail come from increased investment value that has much more to do with a trading market that is not neatly correlated with corporate revenues. Certainly, gains in the price of stock held by a shareholder are never taxed at the corporate level, even if they may or may not bear some relationship to movement in corporate revenues.

        Then you throw in the idea that any gain in would lead to stepped-up basis at death, if you eliminate the estate tax, it will never be taxed at ANY level.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 10:23:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Romney lied (surprise!) about cap gains. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FischFry

          Unlike dividends they are not taxed at the corporate level - which is why Romney takes his capital gains outside the country where they're not taxed at all.

          For a really good discussion of Romney's economic plan - if you can call it that (it's more a scam than plan) - read William Gale's explication here.  This is a follow-up to the work Gale's group did on Romney's plan when he first released it, before he started redefining, backtracking and dissembling about it.  Gale is Co-Director of the Tax Policy Center at Brookings.

          "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

          by SueDe on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 12:48:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sounds like you're confusing divideds w/cap (0+ / 0-)

          gains.  Not the same thing.  Dividends are paid out of earnings, which have already been taxed.  Capital gains are new earnings, they have never been taxed.

          Say you buy Google for $500 and it rises to $700.  If you bought 100 shares, you have just made $20,000 in capital gains.  You are not taxed on the $50,000 you invested because you already paid taxes on it when you earned it.  You are only taxed on the $20,000.  That money was never taxed before.

          The other issue about Mitt and capital gains is that Bain was calling management fees "carried interest."  Carried interest, something available to these partnerships, is taxed at the cap gain rate.  But management fees are earned income and should be taxed at the higher rate.

          Again.  CAPITAL GAINS have NEVER been taxed before.

          In capitalist America, bank robs you!

          by madhaus on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 09:05:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Romney proposes no cap gains taxes for sub $200k (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pollwatcher

      households as well as for dividends and interest.

      See http://www.mittromney.com/...

      Cap gains, dividends and interest do not get the 20% rate cut under the Romney proposal.  A wealthy person with only cap gains, dividend and interest income would not see a benefit from the rate cut except potentially for the first $200k of income.

      In the particular case of Romney, his taxes would go up significantly under his proposal because of the loss of deductions, and his income coming from sources that don't get the rate cut.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 09:20:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If his rate doesn't change then how can (0+ / 0-)

        his taxes go up? Romney's earned income rate, albeit a small part of his total income, will go down by 20% and the loss of deductions will render it defecit neutral according to Romney's campaign. Where is the increase in taxes?

        •  As stated in my comment (0+ / 0-)
          his taxes would go up significantly under his proposal because of the loss of deductions,
          In addition to state income taxes and property taxes, he also had very large charity deductions.  Deductions reduce taxes due not only on ordinary income.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 10:58:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, I understand that removing those deductions (0+ / 0-)

            would raise his burden but he also would reduce his rate by 20%, offsetting any increases by his own assertion. He has stressed over and over how his plan would be defecit neutral with no increase in revenue. If his defecit exploding plan is going to be magically balanced with the closing of loopholes and LOWERING the tax rate across the board it's odd that he hasn't said exactly what loopholes will close...rendering any calculations about how it would affect his rate wildly speculative. His plan relies heavily on an unrealistic expectation of growth to make up the difference in lost revenue. It does conveniently protect the wealthy if there is another Republican Economic crash by giving them nice low rates and another excuse to bring down the austerity hammer on the lower classes. As far as raising his tax onus significantly, I seriously doubt that and repeating what you already posted hardly proves it.

            •  The Romney tax proposal does not reduce rates (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              on capital gains, dividends or interest for income over $200k. So the average reduction in marginal rates paid by Romney would be far less than a 20% reduction.  

              At this point, it looks like all the various current itemized deductions will be retained, but a fixed dollar cap on total deductions would apply.  Based upon what has been said and written, this cap amount would be somewhere between $17k and 45k.  The idea of a total cap is very powerful, as it puts very strong limits on gaming the tax code by the wealthy. The current tax code already has weaker forms of deduction caps thought the AMT and limits on charitable deductions.  

              As far as being revenue neutral, it depends upon to what extent the base is broadened in a Congressional deal and how high is the deduction cap.  The base could be broadened further by excluding the foreign tax credit, including municipal bond interest in income, treating carried interest as ordinary income, etc..limitation on deferred income, etc..

              The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

              by nextstep on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:43:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  HE HAS PROPOSED MANY, MANY THINGS (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cybersaur

        ...he doesn't exactly inspire confidence that he would put full weight behind any of his stated plans in their known forms, should he be elected.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site