Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Now who is lying again?

I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.

It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal.

The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.
That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.

www.weeklystandard.com...

You can check Romney's math here;
www.weeklystandard.com...
edit on 8-10-2012 by Thunderheart because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Thunderheart
 

0bama and company haven taken something and spun it to try to sell the idea of 4 more years under his thumb is a great decision????

NAHH!! That would never happen.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Maybe you should read Harvey S. Rosen's paper that he wrote on the subject. Growth, Distribution, and Tax Reform: Thoughts on the Romney Proposal He only talks about people that make more than 100K a year. There is no way Romney's plan will work without someones taxes going up. And seeing how people that makes more than 100K a year won't be going up there is only one group left to tax and that is people who make less than 100K a year. Rosen apparently lives in some dream world where everyone has stock portfolios which simply isn't the case with your average middle class families.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 

No thanks, I think I'll take the Princeton egghead's word on it.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunderheart
reply to post by buster2010
 

No thanks, I think I'll take the Princeton egghead's word on it.


I second that. the Obama campagin is misrepesenting Romneys tax plan.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Thunderheart
 


BUT!

That isn't Romney's math! It is math done by others only made possible with some assumptions, none of which can be verified since Romney still has not given details on what EXACTLY he would cut....besides NOVA and Big Bird, that is.


So if we assume (1) that the repeal of Obamacare's tax hikes is more than paid for by repeal of Obamacare's spending and (2) that Romney could nix the exclusion of interest on state and local bonds and the exclusion of inside-buildup on life insurance vehicles, then the $86 billion hole is actually a $12 billion hole. So the boost to economic growth from the Romney plan could be much smaller than what the Mankiw-Weinzerl study indicates it would be, and Romney's plan would still maintain revenue neutrality without raising middle class taxes.


IF WE ASSUME.

I don't want to assume. I want to KNOW.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Thunderheart
 


Be sure and let us know how that works for you.

Tell us 2 years into a Romney presidency...



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
reply to post by Thunderheart
 


Be sure and let us know how that works for you.

Tell us 2 years into a Romney presidency...

I'm sure it will be better than 6 years into an Obama occupation...



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Thunderheart
 


Maybe so...maybe not...there is only 50% chance of knowing either way if we keep the 'polls' out of the speculation at this point.

And I suspect it all depends on one's socio-economic status, anyway. I know one thing for my own family: we truly ARE doing better now than we were 4 years ago. And our income has not changed much at all, or anything else for that matter.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
Maybe you should read Harvey S. Rosen's paper that he wrote on the subject. Growth, Distribution, and Tax Reform: Thoughts on the Romney Proposal He only talks about people that make more than 100K a year. There is no way Romney's plan will work without someones taxes going up. And seeing how people that makes more than 100K a year won't be going up there is only one group left to tax and that is people who make less than 100K a year. Rosen apparently lives in some dream world where everyone has stock portfolios which simply isn't the case with your average middle class families.


What are your qualifications? Why should I believe you over the guy working at Princeton? Regardless, we have another Obama lie due to the facts being bad for his campaign.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
reply to post by Thunderheart
 


BUT!

That isn't Romney's math! It is math done by others only made possible with some assumptions, none of which can be verified since Romney still has not given details on what EXACTLY he would cut....besides NOVA and Big Bird, that is.


So if we assume (1) that the repeal of Obamacare's tax hikes is more than paid for by repeal of Obamacare's spending and (2) that Romney could nix the exclusion of interest on state and local bonds and the exclusion of inside-buildup on life insurance vehicles, then the $86 billion hole is actually a $12 billion hole. So the boost to economic growth from the Romney plan could be much smaller than what the Mankiw-Weinzerl study indicates it would be, and Romney's plan would still maintain revenue neutrality without raising middle class taxes.


IF WE ASSUME.

I don't want to assume. I want to KNOW.


No, the issue is whether his plan can work. It can. He can do EVERYTHING he said and remain revenue neutral. The best plan is where you state the goal, and then find a way to achieve it. That is what Romney did. He stated his goal, and it has been PROVEN that it an be achieved.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by buster2010
Maybe you should read Harvey S. Rosen's paper that he wrote on the subject. Growth, Distribution, and Tax Reform: Thoughts on the Romney Proposal He only talks about people that make more than 100K a year. There is no way Romney's plan will work without someones taxes going up. And seeing how people that makes more than 100K a year won't be going up there is only one group left to tax and that is people who make less than 100K a year. Rosen apparently lives in some dream world where everyone has stock portfolios which simply isn't the case with your average middle class families.


What are your qualifications? Why should I believe you over the guy working at Princeton? Regardless, we have another Obama lie due to the facts being bad for his campaign.


Maybe you and the other delusional twins should actually read his report. He is just as out of touch with the common people as Romney.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 

I don't know if I'm a delusional twin or not, but I think you've offered some good advice: "read the report." So I did, especially to find out about the $100,000 issue that holds so much importance for you.

From the first paragraph of the report:

Critics of the proposal have argued that high-income taxpayers would receive a tax cut, and given that the proposal is meant to be revenue neutral, this would inevitably lead to increased taxes for families with low and moderate incomes.
"The proposal" here refers to the Romney tax proposal. Since critics are saying that high-income taxpayers would get a tax cut, he wants to determine if that's necessarily true.

But what does "high-income taxpayer" mean, precisely? His solution to that problem?

Another issue that has to be dealt with at the outset is how to define “high-income.” This is not a term of art. Some people would regard a family with an income of $175,000 as being rich, while others would say that it is middle-class. Since who is “high-income” is in the eyes of the beholder, I again do the analysis twice, once for households with $100,000 or more in income, and once only for households with $200,000 or more.
He's saying that nobody know for sure so he'll run the numbers twice, once assuming that $200,000 is high-income, and again at $100,000 being the level for high-income. Then he plans to check on the differences.

In sum, I believe you're misunderstanding the $100,000 issue. When you say (in a thread on the same topic,)

He thinks everyone makes over 100K a year and has stock portfolios.
I am led to believe that you haven't read the report, either.

But I sympathize, it's easy to make fundamental mistakes in looking at Econ papers.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by buster2010
Maybe you should read Harvey S. Rosen's paper that he wrote on the subject. Growth, Distribution, and Tax Reform: Thoughts on the Romney Proposal He only talks about people that make more than 100K a year. There is no way Romney's plan will work without someones taxes going up. And seeing how people that makes more than 100K a year won't be going up there is only one group left to tax and that is people who make less than 100K a year. Rosen apparently lives in some dream world where everyone has stock portfolios which simply isn't the case with your average middle class families.


What are your qualifications? Why should I believe you over the guy working at Princeton? Regardless, we have another Obama lie due to the facts being bad for his campaign.


Maybe you and the other delusional twins should actually read his report. He is just as out of touch with the common people as Romney.


Then why did Obama use him as a source? Obama clearly thought the person knew their stuff. Only problem was they lied about that he had to say.





top topics
 
8

log in

join