web Mitt Romney's $5 Trillion Tax Cut Plan Explained

[excalpius 595]

Or instead of the constant trolling, you could do some research and learn the details of his plan...

None of this has been a secret, and it doesn't take a genius to figure any of this out.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

You're a low information voter if you think that page actually details one word about how anyone could possibly accomplish (financially!) the nonsense Rmoney's trying to sell you...

The rest of us are smart enough to see the lies presented before our very eyes.

[*RedBull* 608]

well Obama and friends have yet to pass a budget in 4 years. I'll take any plan over no plan...

Well stated. (Y)

[zhangm 1,292]

I managed to click the button.

It did NOTHING!

[Spartan Erik 150]

CNN has fact checked it, and it is simply not true. Cutter first said "It will be a 5 trillion dollar tab", then she said "It will not be near 5 trillion dollars." So she doesn't know what she is talking about. Then she tells CNN to prove it - why doesn't she prove it? She is the one making the claims, the burden of proof is upon her to do it. So why doesn't she, she was there on TV she had the chance to, but either couldn't be bothered or it is all a lie, like she admitted it is.

And we do know what does add up - Obama's record. His record adds up to $1+ trillion deficits year over year over year over year even after he claimed that he would cut the yearly deficit by half, and is still claiming he will do it. But that is OK, we need to make up a mythical $5 trillion over 10 years lie.

http://abcnews.go.co...bate-in-denver/

Jon Karl?s Rating:

Obama is not accurate when he says Romney?s plan includes a $5 trillion tax cut. Romney has said his tax plan will be revenue neutral. Romney has not provided the details on how he will pay for his tax rate cut, but that does not mean the President can make the details up for him.

This claim would be Mostly Fiction.

It's not true if you take Mitt at his word, but that doesn't mean his word is true. All because Mitt says it doesn't make it so.

Amy Bingham has the facts:

Mitt Romney has said repeatedly, and said again from the debate stage tonight, that his tax plan will be revenue-neutral and will not add to the deficit. But he has yet to outline exactly how he would pay for his plan.

So far the only specifics he has offered on how to pay for his 20 percent across-the-board rate reduction and collection of other tax cutting measures is to eliminate tax ?loopholes? for high income earners.

Without these specifics, an analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimated that his tax cuts would strip $5 trillion from federal revenues over the next decade, or $456 billion per year.

Romney?s tax plan could add $5 trillion to the deficit. But that is an estimate on an incomplete tax plan. Romney insists that when his plan goes from an election-year outline to a Congress-ready proposal he will include provisions, closing tax loopholes and broadening the tax base, that will ensure it will not add to the deficit. The issue is that no one knows what those provisions are just yet. Recently he has suggested a maximum $17,000 deduction.

So the estimated cost is still in the ballpark of up to $5 trillion, less after deductions, but still not enough to be revenue neutral based on closing loopholes alone.

Once again, how is he going to pay for these tax cuts if he's not going to cut defense? Has to be Medicare, Medicaid, SS, corporate welfare, and/or social welfare.

[nohone 150]

http://abcnews.go.co...bate-in-denver/

It's not true if you take Mitt at his word, but that doesn't mean his word is true. All because Mitt says it doesn't make it so.

So the cost is still in the ballpark of up to $5 trillion, less after deductions, but still not enough to be revenue neutral based on closing loopholes alone.

Once again, how is he going to pay for these tax cuts if he's not going to cut defense? Has to be Medicare, Medicaid, SS, corporate welfare, and/or social welfare.

Here is the thing - we keep hearing from libs that Romney doesn't have a plan. They say that Romney/Ryan cannot explain their plan. it was said in the comments here that the plan on their web site has no information in it. So how does a supposedly non-existent plan with no information add up to $5 trillion? We have Obama's own campaign flip-flopping (sorry, evolving, because Obama and his surrogates don't flip-flop, they evolve) one minute saying it is $5T, the next it will not be $5T then it is $5T on a plan that supposedly does not exist but does exist to not have much information. Who are we to believe, CNN, Politico, or Obama's campaign? I don't know which of their evolvings I am to believe.

Of course, then we have the so called "independent" Tax Policy Center, that wrote the critique of the supposedly non-existent Romney tax plan. Yes, so independent, that it was written by a former Obama WH staffer, Adam Looney, who's own bio describes himself as the senior economist for public finance and tax policy with the President's Council of Economic Advisers. But I guess Looney's independence "evolved" too.

[shakey 1,126]

Here is the thing - we keep hearing from libs that Romney doesn't have a plan. They say that Romney/Ryan cannot explain their plan. it was said in the comments here that the plan on their web site has no information in it. So how does a supposedly non-existent plan with no information add up to $5 trillion? We have Obama's own campaign flip-flopping (sorry, evolving, because Obama and his surrogates don't flip-flop, they evolve) one minute saying it is $5T, the next it will not be $5T then it is $5T on a plan that supposedly does not exist but does exist to not have much information. Who are we to believe, CNN, Politico, or Obama's campaign? I don't know which of their evolvings I am to believe.

...... really?

Previously, Governor Romney has said that his tax plan would cut all individual income tax rates by 20%, eliminate the AMT, eliminate the estate tax, and eliminate taxes on investment income for low- and middle-income taxpayers. He would also extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts that are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.

Those tax cuts would reduce federal revenues by $480 billion in 2015 over and above the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts. Allow for some growth in income, and the total comes to over $5 trillion over ten years.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/10/04/about-mitt-romneys-5-trillion-tax-cut/

[chrisj1968 1,417]

He doesn't seriously think he can cut $5T in taxes, does he? :s

Yeah since libs haven't figured out to decrease the debt. cut taxes AND S.P.E.N.D.I.N.G

[Growled 3,880]

We are going in circles on this crap yet again?

[shakey 1,126]

We are going in circles on this crap yet again?

It only goes in circles because stupid wont take :p

[Astra.Xtreme 2,509]

You're a low information voter if you think that page actually details one word about how anyone could possibly accomplish (financially!) the nonsense Rmoney's trying to sell you...

The rest of us are smart enough to see the lies presented before our very eyes.

Just like how Obama is telling the complete truth about his plans, right? So that must mean that just because somebody votes Romney, they are "low information". Or are you saying that both candidates are full of sh*t? I'd tend to lean towards the latter.

[shakey 1,126]

Just like how Obama is telling the complete truth about his plans, right? So that must mean that just because somebody votes Romney, they are "low information". Or are you saying that both candidates are full of sh*t? I'd tend to lean towards the latter.

So you take Romney's nothing over this http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/tax_plan_matrix_transition.pdf ???? Dude, come on....

[Growled 3,880]

I say they are both full of ****, myself.

[123456789A 4,710]

Democrats can't even design a web site properly. I click on the button and it doesn't do anything.

[Sandor 436]

Troll Level: Over 9000

[IsItPluggedIn 1,683]

So here is the problem. You cant get the budget back on track without increasing revenue or cutting expenditure.

But everybody hates it when you increase tax's, so you say ok ill cut spending, then everybody is up in arms about loosing their jobs or not having enough funding for such and such.

So to win the election you have to fumble your way through some hidden tax increases or hidden expenditure costs, or just drive the country into the ground. Although most of the people in politics aren't in it for the country so the last option is the one they take so they can get in.

So really these arguments are just going to go around in circles because nobody wants to give up the facts because then they would never get in. Its a popularity contest and the person who hides their secrets the best wins.

[rfirth 740]

So, Romney's plan is to cut taxes. This will lead to about a $5,000,000,000 shortfall over 10 years. He plans on paying for this by removing tax loopholes and some deductions... so that people end up paying the same rate, making it revenue neutral.

But if that's the case, why cut taxes at all? You end up paying the same amount whether the tax cut is implemented or not. You must realize that this is a circular plan that does absolutely nothing to help us, right? In the best case, it does nothing. In the worst case, it adds to the deficit.

The only way to solve this problem is to cut spending and raise taxes slightly... but wait to raise taxes until the economy is strong. Or, just cut spending. Unfortunately, it sounds like Romney wants to spend even more money on our already over-funded military. That only leaves Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid cuts... because you sure aren't going to save $1,000,000,000/year (to simply fix our current deficit, ignoring any additional pressure a tax cut would add) by cutting PBS and Planned Parenthood.

The math simply does not add up.