As you already know, Romney is calling for a 20% tax rate cut.Right. That's what I meant.If the "tax cut" is a tax rate cut, then the resulting revenue could be lower, higher, or the same. Well, he's saying that combined with closing loopholes that it's revenue neutral, which to me means it's not really a tax cut. Or rather, it'd be a tax cut for some, but an offsetting increase for others. I see two problems with this:1. There aren't enough "loopholes" to close to offset a 20% rate cut.2. Since it's revenue neutral, some will pay more, others less -- so who is it that pays more versus less. (The Center for Tax Policy analysis suggests middle class households will pay an average of $2,000 more.)Aren't you tired of the word games yet?Actually, I'm sick of them. I don't think it's cricket to call a $2,000 tax increase on middle class households a "tax cut" just because the marginal rates are reduced 20%.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra