Skip to main content

This weekend, Mitt Romney pledged to David Gregory that he would not cut taxes for the wealthy.

That seemed to confuse even George Will. But it needn't have, because there's a way to do it that makes everybody roughly equally happy or equally unhappy ... and wealthy taxpayers ecstatic.

Stay with me here. The logic is easy.

Romney said he would not cut taxes (or "the tax burden") for the wealthy. He did not say he wouldn't cut rates. In fact, he said that he would cut rates, but he would also limit deductions and credits. Even George Will, who can - and does - defend any conservative view, no matter how intellectually deficient that view is, bit on that. Will pointed out - correctly - that cutting the biggest deductions (for real estate mortgages, charitable giving and state and local taxes) and taxing employer health benefits wouldn't produce much revenue from the wealthiest, but they would seriously impact middle class taxpayers who do take advantage of just those deductions. Hence, rate cuts for everyone.

Everyone who interviewed Romney and Ryan wanted specifics. Mitt Romney stayed at the level of high principles and Paul Ryan artlessly explained - patiently, to us know-littles - that they wanted to be specific and public, and they would be because Congress will have a debate about the details ... and then they would also be public.

Here's how Mitt can do it.

Mitt does what he says by decreasing and possibly erasing the value of some deductions and credits for the wealthy (several provisions of the tax code today, like the Alternative Minimum Tax, already do that) but he reduces rates for both the rich and the middle income taxpayers.

Got that? And the rich will like it. Why? Because it keeps the one thing Republican policymakers love more than anything else ... keeping rates linked for the rich and the middle. Maybe just two brackets, for example. But keep the rate cuts packaged together, just as the Bush tax cuts did. Anything - anything! - to avoid de-linking rates and thereby making progressive taxation moreso.

And Mitt Romney is likely to keep a few more things the wealthy love: reduced rates on long term capital gains and on interest, and the manipulation that converts what most of us think of as income into "carried interest." It is unthinkable that a Republican President or a Republican Congress would increase rates or change the tax treatment of any of those, thereby disincenting (according to them) the formation of capital.

So, how much money would the Romney non-specific proposal take in to reduce the deficit? Ah, there's why virtually every economist, accountant and budget expert to be interviewed Sunday and Monday was skeptical. Justifiably so. Besides, you can't know the math until you know the specifics, and we won't get them, yet.

The political strategists could have pointed out - though I haven't heard any so far who did with any force - that this simply finesses the problem to Congress. Why hey, if Congress can't agree on which deductions and credits to cut and which to keep, well, that isn't our problem, same as the botched GOP/White House agreement on sequestration. The fact that something can't be done politically never disturbs people who profession is kicking the can down the road.

But those are discussions for after the election.

The Romney/Ryan tax policy is a shell game.


Mitt Romney - if and after he is elected - will pay ...

41%5 votes
0%0 votes
41%5 votes
16%2 votes

| 12 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Demi Moaned

    Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

    by TRPChicago on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 06:28:42 PM PDT

  •  Electing a president who uses every trick in the (0+ / 0-)

    book to avoid paying income taxes is likely to encourage tax evasion among the lesser lights.  Why should Joe Six-pack respect his tax obligations, when the president of the United States makes a mockery of his.

    Because stupid people are so sure they're smart, they often act smart, and sometimes even smart people are too stupid to recognize that the stupid people acting smart really ARE stupid.

    by ZedMont on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 06:43:54 PM PDT

  •  His statement is a lie, but MSM is overlooking (0+ / 0-)

    First, he is reducing taxes on top incomes by lowering the tax rate. So claims that he is not cutting their taxes is completely false.

    Second, while he claims he will reduce loopholes, not every top income taxpayer takes advantage of the same loophole.

    Third, if the top incomes paid the exact same taxes in 2013 that they did in 2012, what good will it do?

    So even if Romney named the loopholes he was going to close, there would in fact be top incomes who pay less, despite his claims otherwise.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site