Editor's note: William Gale is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
Washington (CNN) -- For months, voters have been in the dark about key details of Mitt Romney's tax plans.
He specified $5 trillion
in tax cuts, a 20% cut in income tax rates, a 40% cut in the corporate
tax rate, repeal of the estate tax and alternative minimum tax and
elimination of taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for
households with incomes below $200,000.
He did not want his changes to raise the deficit, but he was utterly mum on how to raise $5 trillion to offset the tax cuts.
Even if all the available
tax expenditures were closed in the most progressive manner possible,
it would not raise enough revenue among high-income households to offset
the tax cuts they would receive. This was true even when we adjusted
the revenue estimates to allow for the impact of potential economic
growth, and even when we gave the campaign a trillion-dollar mulligan by
ignoring the cost of the corporate tax cuts.
As a result, we concluded
that if Romney did not impose new taxes on savings and investments, the
only way to finance his tax cut proposals and reach revenue neutrality
was to raise taxes on households with income below $200,000.
This was not a forecast of what Romney would actually do; it was simply a matter of arithmetic.
No comments:
Post a Comment