Sure, it doesn't add much to people who hate Romney already, but it's a neutral and objective authority demonstrating that there's really no way he can deliver what he claims he can on taxes in the parameters he's outlined. That's significant.

tylercowen ‏@tylercowen
The proposed Romney fiscal policy just doesn't make any sense.

/thread

Why not have the conversation right here in this thread? If your arguments are so unassailably solid, shouldn't they be shared with all?

If you can only make your case in private, then you probably don't have much of a case to make.

You might be confusing top 1%'s share of the nation's income (which is about 16~22%) with their effective tax rates.

I am using CBO estimates. They have effective federal tax rates listed at 33.6% for top 1%. Important to note I am not disputing this is low by historical standards. It's just not as low as people think.

Another thing not talked about is rate of wealth transfer, through the government, has actually increased in the past 20 or 30 years. You can see this if you compare the pre and after income tax shares of the quintiles. It has been the norm for some time that middle class' share of after tax incomes are bigger than their shares in pre-tax incomes. Who's paying for that? Top 20%, especially top 1%. And, oddly enough, bottom 20% are seeing less of the wealth transferred to them (as measured by differences between pre and post tax income shares)

We don't have a wealth tax.

Capital gains is a form of wealth. I have pretty meager holdings myself, but most of the wealthiest 1% get their money from capital gains. My mom has made close to $80,000 alone in apple stock so far this year.

The way the tax system is structured, it honors money earned through capital gains, more than money made through wages and work. Romney wants to keep it that way, since most wealthy people don't make their money through work, but capital gains.

Bush tax cuts on the wealthy are 5% of the deficit. Obviously, taking this money from them will reduce GDP and tax revenue by some amount, I don't know how much. So essentially, we will decrease the deficit by 5% but it will actually be less than that cause GDP and tax revenue will fall.

I dunno I mean if I were to talk to Obama I would say "Whats the plan on the deficit?" and he'd go "Uh ah I say we ah tax ah the wealthiest people what they were paying before the uh ah Bush tax cuts". And then I would say, "And for the other 95% of the deficit?",

What is your opinion on someone who wants to increase defence spending and CUT taxes on the rich?

DON'T STOP THERE I AM DYING TO READ HOW THIS MYTHICAL CONVERSATION ENDS

What are you trying to say in that first paragraph. It literally makes no sense.

Shocking i know but Obama actually has a much more detailed plan to cut the deficit than Romney who everyone BUT Romney acknowledges relies on fairy dust and dragon's breath to create mythical sustained economic growth the likes of which hasnt been seen in over a generation.

the tax cut helping only rich people will give poor people incentive to not be poor anymore so that in the future the tax cut will favour them

Romney isn't going to give into the liberal media and release his tax plan.

He endorses the Mitt Romney policy of only discussing such matters in "quiet rooms"?

I don't think this is a serious post, but I never know with you liberal joksters so in case you are being serious:

When you live in a country where the rich pay such a huge majority of taxes then any reasonable tax cut will always lower the rich's taxes the most.

The bolded part is not necessarily a reasonable assumption.