Moody’s Chief Economist On Romney’s Tax Plan: ‘The Arithmetic Doesn’t Work’

[Lakhota]

By Annie-Rose Strasser

The fact that Mitt Romney’s tax plan is mathematically impossible was reinforced again on Friday, when Mark Zandi, a former John McCain campaign adviser and Chief Economist at Moody’s Economy, admitted as much.

Speaking on CNN’s “Starting Point,” Zandi acknowledged a study by the Tax Policy Center that shows Romney’s plan to lower taxes by 20 percent across the board, while making up those losses in government revenue by closing loopholes on the wealthy, doesn’t add up. Zandi even went so far as to say that “the arithmetic doesn’t work as it is right now”:

ZANDI: Yeah, I think the Tax Policy Center study is the definitive study. They’re non-partisan, they’re very good. They say given the numbers that they’ve been provided by the Romney campaign, no, it will not add up. Now, the Romney campaign could adjust their plan. They could say okay I’m not going to lower tax rates as much as I’m saying right now and they could make the arithmetic work. But under the current plan, with the current numbers, no it doesn’t. I’ll say one other thing, though. I think it is important that we do focus on the so-called tax expenditures in the tax code. Those are the deductions, and credits, and loopholes in the code. We need to reduce those, because if we do we’re going to make the tax system fairer, easier to understand and ultimately lead to stronger growth. So that’s the right place to focus. But, no, the arithmetic doesn’t work as it is right now.​

More: Economist: Romney's Tax Plan 'Doesn't Work'

Zandi- Romney's Math Doesn't Work - YouTube

 

[toomuchtime_]

By Annie-Rose Strasser

The fact that Mitt Romney’s tax plan is mathematically impossible was reinforced again on Friday, when Mark Zandi, a former John McCain campaign adviser and Chief Economist at Moody’s Economy, admitted as much.

Speaking on CNN’s “Starting Point,” Zandi acknowledged a study by the Tax Policy Center that shows Romney’s plan to lower taxes by 20 percent across the board, while making up those losses in government revenue by closing loopholes on the wealthy, doesn’t add up. Zandi even went so far as to say that “the arithmetic doesn’t work as it is right now”:

ZANDI: Yeah, I think the Tax Policy Center study is the definitive study. They’re non-partisan, they’re very good. They say given the numbers that they’ve been provided by the Romney campaign, no, it will not add up. Now, the Romney campaign could adjust their plan. They could say okay I’m not going to lower tax rates as much as I’m saying right now and they could make the arithmetic work. But under the current plan, with the current numbers, no it doesn’t. I’ll say one other thing, though. I think it is important that we do focus on the so-called tax expenditures in the tax code. Those are the deductions, and credits, and loopholes in the code. We need to reduce those, because if we do we’re going to make the tax system fairer, easier to understand and ultimately lead to stronger growth. So that’s the right place to focus. But, no, the arithmetic doesn’t work as it is right now.​

More: Economist: Romney's Tax Plan 'Doesn't Work'

Zandi- Romney's Math Doesn't Work - YouTube

During the debate Romney said that he will not allow any tax cuts that will increase the deficit, meaning that the math will necessarily add up.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL And Bush stated that his tax cuts would help the economy and not increase the deficit. Why have we any reason to believe any of this crap?

The numbers don't add up. Kind of like a fellow that states that he will pay his credit card bill off by decreasing his income and eating one less candy bar a week. Arithmetic.

 

[rdean]

Republicans are not going to worry about being "fact checked".

 

[toomuchtime_]

LOL And Bush stated that his tax cuts would help the economy and not increase the deficit. Why have we any reason to believe any of this crap?

The numbers don't add up. Kind of like a fellow that states that he will pay his credit card bill off by decreasing his income and eating one less candy bar a week. Arithmetic.

No, it's like the fellow who said he will not charge any more on his credit card than he can afford to pay back. Again, Romney promised that while a 20% tax cut is his goal, he will not allow any tax cuts that will increase the deficit, so the numbers necessarily add up.

 

[The Rabbi]

Mark Zandi supported the stimulus and has been a stalwart supporter of Obama's policies from the very beginning. This marks him as a 'tard. Whatever he says, the opposite is probably true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

By Annie-Rose Strasser

The fact that Mitt Romney’s tax plan is mathematically impossible was reinforced again on Friday, when Mark Zandi, a former John McCain campaign adviser and Chief Economist at Moody’s Economy, admitted as much.

Speaking on CNN’s “Starting Point,” Zandi acknowledged a study by the Tax Policy Center that shows Romney’s plan to lower taxes by 20 percent across the board, while making up those losses in government revenue by closing loopholes on the wealthy, doesn’t add up. Zandi even went so far as to say that “the arithmetic doesn’t work as it is right now”:

ZANDI: Yeah, I think the Tax Policy Center study is the definitive study. They’re non-partisan, they’re very good. They say given the numbers that they’ve been provided by the Romney campaign, no, it will not add up. Now, the Romney campaign could adjust their plan. They could say okay I’m not going to lower tax rates as much as I’m saying right now and they could make the arithmetic work. But under the current plan, with the current numbers, no it doesn’t. I’ll say one other thing, though. I think it is important that we do focus on the so-called tax expenditures in the tax code. Those are the deductions, and credits, and loopholes in the code. We need to reduce those, because if we do we’re going to make the tax system fairer, easier to understand and ultimately lead to stronger growth. So that’s the right place to focus. But, no, the arithmetic doesn’t work as it is right now.​

More: Economist: Romney's Tax Plan 'Doesn't Work'

Zandi- Romney's Math Doesn't Work - YouTube

During the debate Romney said that he will not allow any tax cuts that will increase the deficit, meaning that the math will necessarily add up.

The Republicans have yet to impose a tax cut that didn't lead to increased deficits, so it will be quite a trick for Romney to do so.

 

[Lakhota]

Mathematically Impossible

The Final Word on Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan - Bloomberg

 

[Lakhota]

Tax Policy Center: IMPLICATIONS OF GOVERNOR ROMNEY’S TAX PROPOSALS: FAQS AND RESPONSES

 

[toomuchtime_]

More: Economist: Romney's Tax Plan 'Doesn't Work'

Zandi- Romney's Math Doesn't Work - YouTube

During the debate Romney said that he will not allow any tax cuts that will increase the deficit, meaning that the math will necessarily add up.

The Republicans have yet to impose a tax cut that didn't lead to increased deficits, so it will be quite a trick for Romney to do so.

No tricks are necessary. All it will take is careful planning of ending deductions for the wealthy, cutting spending and encouraging economic growth. Romney did this successfully in Mass. even with a hostile legislature fighting him and there is no reason to think he can't do it again in Washington. Obama is a whiner, but Romney is a doer.

 

[Annie]

Not nearly as damning as a 'friendly' piece in The Economist, a month before the first debate. Indeed, a week before the DNC Convention. It really is about record and vision thing:

President Obama: Four more years? | The Economist

President Obama
Four more years?
A president who has had a patchy first term now needs to make a convincing case for a second one

Sep 1st 2012

IN DENVER four years ago, an inspiring presidential candidate announced that he would change America. Barack Obama promised to put aside partisan differences, restore hope to those without jobs, begin the process of saving the planet from global warming, and make America proud again.

Next week Mr Obama will address his fellow Democrats at their convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, with little of this hopeful agenda completed. Three million more Americans are out of work than four years ago, and the national debt is $5 trillion bigger. Partisan gridlock is worse than ever: health-care reform, a genuinely impressive achievement, has become a prime source of rancour. Businessfolk are split over whether he dislikes capitalism or is merely indifferent to it. His global-warming efforts have evaporated. America’s standing in the Muslim world is no higher than it was under George W. Bush, Iran remains dangerous, Russia and China are still prickly despite the promised resets, and the prison in Guantánamo remains open.

So far, so underwhelming

The defence of Mr Obama’s record comes down to one phrase: it could all have been a lot worse. He inherited an economy in free fall thanks to the banking crash and the fiscal profligacy that occurred under his predecessor; his stimulus measures and his saving of Detroit carmakers helped avert a second Depression; overall, he deserves decent if patchy grades on the economy (see article). Confronted by obstructionist Republicans in Congress, he did well to get anything through at all. Abroad he has sensibly recalibrated American foreign policy. And there have been individual triumphs, such as the killing of Osama bin Laden.

But this does not amount to a compelling case for re-election, in the view of either this paper or the American people. More than 60% of voters believe their country to be on the wrong track. Mr Obama’s approval ratings are well under 50%; almost two-thirds of voters are unimpressed (however harshly) by how he has handled the economy. Worn down by the difficulties of office, the great reformer has become a cautious man, surrounded by an insular group of advisers. The candidate who promised bold solutions to the country’s gravest problems turned into the president who failed even to back his own commission’s plans for cutting the deficit.

Were he facing a more charismatic candidate than Mitt Romney or a less extremist bunch than the Republicans, Mr Obama would already be staring at defeat. The fact that the president has had to “go negative” so early and so relentlessly shows how badly he needs the election to be about Mr Romney’s weaknesses rather than his own achievements. A man who four years ago epitomised hope will arrive in Charlotte with a campaign that thus far has been about invoking fear.

Mr Obama must offer more than this, for three reasons. First, a negative campaign may well fail. The Republicans are a rum bunch with a wooden leader; but Mr Romney’s record as an executive and governor is impressive, and his running-mate, Paul Ryan, is a fount of bold ideas. Mr Obama’s strategy of blaming everything on Republican obstructionism will strike many voters as demeaning.

...

 

[Interpol]

By Annie-Rose Strasser

The fact that Mitt Romney’s tax plan is mathematically impossible was reinforced again on Friday, when Mark Zandi, a former John McCain campaign adviser and Chief Economist at Moody’s Economy, admitted as much.

Speaking on CNN’s “Starting Point,” Zandi acknowledged a study by the Tax Policy Center that shows Romney’s plan to lower taxes by 20 percent across the board, while making up those losses in government revenue by closing loopholes on the wealthy, doesn’t add up. Zandi even went so far as to say that “the arithmetic doesn’t work as it is right now”:

ZANDI: Yeah, I think the Tax Policy Center study is the definitive study. They’re non-partisan, they’re very good. They say given the numbers that they’ve been provided by the Romney campaign, no, it will not add up. Now, the Romney campaign could adjust their plan. They could say okay I’m not going to lower tax rates as much as I’m saying right now and they could make the arithmetic work. But under the current plan, with the current numbers, no it doesn’t. I’ll say one other thing, though. I think it is important that we do focus on the so-called tax expenditures in the tax code. Those are the deductions, and credits, and loopholes in the code. We need to reduce those, because if we do we’re going to make the tax system fairer, easier to understand and ultimately lead to stronger growth. So that’s the right place to focus. But, no, the arithmetic doesn’t work as it is right now.​

More: Economist: Romney's Tax Plan 'Doesn't Work'

Zandi- Romney's Math Doesn't Work - YouTube

During the debate Romney said that he will not allow any tax cuts that will increase the deficit, meaning that the math will necessarily add up.

And if a guy across town places an ad for his used car and then tells you in person that it's been certified but doesn't show you any proof, you're saying his word would be enough?

I'm sorry, but it's all nice and good that Gov. Romney says he will only pass deficit-neutral tax cuts, so how exactly does he intend to pay for it?

He proposes 20% cuts across the board. Fine, but what gets cut in order to pay for it? That's a huge expense and closing some loopholes doesn't get you there, as all the experts can attest, even the conservative economists.

 

[Annie]

More: Economist: Romney's Tax Plan 'Doesn't Work'

Zandi- Romney's Math Doesn't Work - YouTube

During the debate Romney said that he will not allow any tax cuts that will increase the deficit, meaning that the math will necessarily add up.

And if a guy across town places an ad for his used car and then tells you in person that it's been certified but doesn't show you any proof, you're saying his word would be enough?

I'm sorry, but it's all nice and good that Gov. Romney says he will only pass deficit-neutral tax cuts, so how exactly does he intend to pay for it?

He proposes 20% cuts across the board. Fine, but what gets cut in order to pay for it? That's a huge expense and closing some loopholes doesn't get you there, as all the experts can attest, even the conservative economists.

And Obama, after 4 years in office has come forward with how many accepted budgets? Oh, right. None. Not one budget passed and no attempts on Democrats side in legislature to do so. Those offered from across the aisle? When passed by the House, were voted down in partisan vote by Senate.

Obstructionists? Democrats.

 

[Interpol]

During the debate Romney said that he will not allow any tax cuts that will increase the deficit, meaning that the math will necessarily add up.

And if a guy across town places an ad for his used car and then tells you in person that it's been certified but doesn't show you any proof, you're saying his word would be enough?

I'm sorry, but it's all nice and good that Gov. Romney says he will only pass deficit-neutral tax cuts, so how exactly does he intend to pay for it?

He proposes 20% cuts across the board. Fine, but what gets cut in order to pay for it? That's a huge expense and closing some loopholes doesn't get you there, as all the experts can attest, even the conservative economists.

And Obama, after 4 years in office has come forward with how many accepted budgets? Oh, right. None. Not one budget passed and no attempts on Democrats side in legislature to do so. Those offered from across the aisle? When passed by the House, were voted down in partisan vote by Senate.

Obstructionists? Democrats.

Actually, Senate Democrats have twice passed a permanent extension to the Bush Tax Cuts for the bottom 95% of individuals and businesses, while letting them expire on millionaires and billionaires. That's actually a very popular thing to do even among moderates like myself, but House Republicans refuse to pass it, holding the middle class hostage in favor of the rich.

House Democrats continue to propose cutting corporate welfare that we taxpayers give to big oil and gas and other industries that don't need our money, but Republicans refuse to act on it.

Democrats propose trimming the defense budget by $500 billion over 10 years, the Pentagon agrees with the administration on it, but Republicans refuse to act on it.

The budgets proposed by House Republicans have not been serious attempts at legislation, since they tack on the gutting of Medicare, Planned Parenthood, Student Loans, and cuts to veterans services in order to pay for massive new tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals.

The President wanted to see a $4 trillion deal last year comprised of $2.2 trillion in cuts with $1.8 trillion coming from increased tax revenue, but Republicans refused to act on it, opting instead for that puny $1 trillion or so deal that Boehner and company ended up going along with.

This new brand of Republican party just hasn't shown any willingness to seriously tackle the big problems of our day. Since they got in there 2 years ago, all they do is pass one abortion bill after another, which is not what they were elected in a landslide to do. They were elected on jobs and deficit reduction, and on both of those counts they have advanced nothing while trying to put the blame on everyone but themselves.

It's time they own their failure.

Obama/Biden in 2012, for serious adults who live in the real world and who want pragmatic leadership and not demagoguery and attacks on women.

 

[Annie]

And if a guy across town places an ad for his used car and then tells you in person that it's been certified but doesn't show you any proof, you're saying his word would be enough?

I'm sorry, but it's all nice and good that Gov. Romney says he will only pass deficit-neutral tax cuts, so how exactly does he intend to pay for it?

He proposes 20% cuts across the board. Fine, but what gets cut in order to pay for it? That's a huge expense and closing some loopholes doesn't get you there, as all the experts can attest, even the conservative economists.

And Obama, after 4 years in office has come forward with how many accepted budgets? Oh, right. None. Not one budget passed and no attempts on Democrats side in legislature to do so. Those offered from across the aisle? When passed by the House, were voted down in partisan vote by Senate.

Obstructionists? Democrats.

Actually, Senate Democrats have twice passed a permanent extension to the Bush Tax Cuts for the bottom 95% of individuals and businesses, while letting them expire on millionaires and billionaires. That's actually a very popular thing to do even among moderates like myself, but House Republicans refuse to pass it, holding the middle class hostage in favor of the rich.

House Democrats continue to propose cutting corporate welfare that we taxpayers give to big oil and gas and other industries that don't need our money, but Republicans refuse to act on it.

Democrats propose trimming the defense budget by $500 billion over 10 years, the Pentagon agrees with the administration on it, but Republicans refuse to act on it.

The budgets proposed by House Republicans have not been serious attempts at legislation, since they tack on the gutting of Medicare, Planned Parenthood, Student Loans, and cuts to veterans services in order to pay for massive new tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals.

The President wanted to see a $4 trillion deal last year comprised of $2.2 trillion in cuts with $1.8 trillion coming from increased tax revenue, but Republicans refused to act on it, opting instead for that puny $1 trillion or so deal that Boehner and company ended up going along with.

This new brand of Republican party just hasn't shown any willingness to seriously tackle the big problems of our day. Since they got in there 2 years ago, all they do is pass one abortion bill after another, which is not what they were elected in a landslide to do. They were elected on jobs and deficit reduction, and on both of those counts they have advanced nothing while trying to put the blame on everyone but themselves.

It's time they own their failure.

Obama/Biden in 2012, for serious adults who live in the real world and who want pragmatic leadership and not demagoguery and attacks on women.

Pig's ear. Purse. Not happening.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama/Biden in 2012, for serious adults who live in the real world and who want pragmatic leadership and not demagoguery and attacks on women.

Srsly? Obama has the worst economic record of any president. His policies are total failures, foreign and domestic. It's more like "Stuck on Stupid? Vote Obama 2012."

 

[RosieS]

Seriously. Romney/Ryan promise there is a tasty piglet in the bag for sale. Trust them! It isn't a sick scrawny old cat....it is a suckling piglet in the bag!

Show you? No...if they did you wouldn't elect them.

That is the truth. You wouldn't.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Toro]

It is a fair question to ask what loopholes he's going to close. If he doesn't say, then he is going to be open to charges that he will close loopholes on the middle class, even if he says he won't.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lakota s0n...............you're slipping. Only 8 threads authored by you on page one here. Did you stop taking your PC to the shitter?

 

[Hutch]

Has anyone considered that by lowering the marginal tax rates by 20%, they would then make that revenue up by eliminating a whole host of deductions that effect everyone not only the wealthy? I mean If for the sake of argument I paid 20% less in taxes, but didnt get my usual deductions the bottom line would come out nearly the same, cash wise. THe real difference would be that I would get to keep my money, instead of sending it to the government to hold until I filed my retrn. I believe that this is wy they are not forthcoming about details, because if they were to explain it, the Dems would be all "THey want to cut the mortgage deduction!" while leaving completely out that with the 20% decrease in marginal rates, your taxes would be the same percetage as they currently are, just more predictable. Just a thought.