Conservative
Type 40
Actually the flaw is yours. What you and everyone else on the right are doing is pretending to forget how Willard Mitt, rhymes with ...., said he would make his tax cuts revenue neutral. He said he would eliminate deductions and close loopholes. So what the study did was calculate the effect of the tax cuts plus eliminating deductions and closing loopholes at each income level.While increasing them for everyone else.
The Romney camp has already called them "liberal outfits".
But when he was citing the exact same folks to attack Rick Perry..they were "independent".
There is a flaw with that. If you click on your link then click on the source link in the article you will see romney's plan actually doesn't have any tax increases in it for anyone.
So someone at that outfit was either mistaken with their numbers or dishonest.
In fact, doing away with the AMT will lower taxes for many low income people (just one example) Here is how the AMT works Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) Assistant for Individuals
"Regular taxable income is adjusted for certain items computed differently for AMT, such as depreciation and medical expenses. No deduction is allowed for state income taxes or miscellaneous itemized deductions in computing AMT income. Taxpayers with incomes above the exemption whose regular Federal income tax is below the amount of AMT must pay the higher AMT amount."
From the report cited in the link in the OP:
Our major conclusion is that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers. This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible. For instance, even when we assume that tax breaks like the charitable deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the exclusion for health insurance are completely eliminated for higher-income households first, and only then reduced as necessary for other households to achieve overall revenue-neutrality the net effect of the plan would be a tax cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income households.
In addition, we also assess whether these results hold if we assume that revenue reductions are partially offset by higher economic growth. Although reasonable models would show that these tax changes would have little effect on growth, we show that even with implausibly large growth effects, revenue neutrality would still require large reductions in tax expenditures and would likely result in a net tax increase for lower- and middle-income households and tax cuts for high-income households.
So, what the left is now saying... is that they were for closing loopholes and eliminating deductions, before they were against it. Got it.