Thursday, October 4, 2012

The Debate: Part 3

Obama's response:
1. "I said that I would cut taxes for middle-class families, and that's exactly what I did. We cut taxes for middle-class families by about $3,600."

I can't find the exact number to be sure of this.  My hunch is that it's not quite that high.  But I could certainly be wrong. But here are some PolitiFact rulings on it, here, here, and here.

2. "Now, Governor Romney's proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military. And he is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he's been asked over a hundred times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn't been able to identify them."

A more accurate statement.

3. "And that's why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Governor Romney's pledge of not reducing the deficit -- or not adding to the deficit, is by burdening middle-class families; the average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more."

It's true that independent studies think that it's impossible for him to do this without burdening middle-class families.

4. "so the average person making 3 million bucks is getting a $250,000 tax break, while middle-class families are burdened further."

FactCheck quoting The Tax Policy Center's study here: "Romney’s plan would result in 99.97 percent of those making $1 million a year or more getting a tax cut (compared with what they pay now) and that the cuts would average $256,603 each. But further down the income scale, the benefit would be considerably less. For those making between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, 94 percent would see a tax cut, and it would average $1,226, before any loss of deductions or credits."

Romney's response:

1. "So there's no economist who can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan."

They're saying it. But these economists also say that there are all of these deductions and loopholes that need to be reduced to make it revenue neutral.

2, "Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals."

Really?  It's hard to make that claim when you are in favor of repealing the estate tax which only affects estates that exceed $5.1 million.  Or you could look at the Tax Policy Center's study.

3.  "Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you described and say it's completely wrong."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Wrong, when it was five.  Wrong, now that it's six.  Blog items and op-ed pieces by campaign advisers and other partisan people are probably the wrong things to cite when you're looking for something to cite.

4. "That is, I want to bring down rates. I want to bring the rates down, at the same time, lower deductions and exemptions and credits and so forth, so we keep getting the revenue we need."

But what are these deductions and exemptions?  Oh right, we still don't know.

No comments:

Post a Comment