yes. i understand that romney claims these things from the long grass.
but he has also claimed that growth rates will increase by magic simply because he is president, and that the increased growth rates help supply his deficiency: "“My own view is, if we win on November 6, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We’ll see capital come back, and we’ll see — without actually doing anything — we’ll actually get a boost in the economy.” this is also romney from his 47% reel.
just like the ryan plan, everything is based around the notion that if you lower taxes on the "job creators" they will grow the economy at a much faster rate. unfortunately there is no economic basis for this belief.
so back to assuming that eliminating deductions can do the whole job: martin feldstein made the argument that romney's plan is doable if taxes are raised on people making more than $100k per year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/24/even-mitt-romney-admits-hell-need-to-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/?print=1
"The Harvard study was done by economist Martin Feldstein, and he makes a very important decision in his paper. He writes, “I think it is very reasonable to say that people in that high-income group” — by which means people making over $100,000 — “are not the ‘middle class.’”
And so, under really, really unrealistic assumptions, he shows that the math can kind of work, but that Romney’s policies would mean a really big tax increase for people making between $100,000 and $250,000 in order to pay for a big tax cut on people making more than $250,000. But that’s okay, because people making over $100,000 are not in the middle class."
unfortunately feldstein's model is not possible while also complying with other things romney has said. eg
" MITT ROMNEY: No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?
MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less."
all the same, you are right to point to mortgage deductions as the only plausible source of savings. and i agree that it actually makes sense to eliminate them as essentially a subsidy for richer homeowners over other homeowners and a subsidy of homeowners in general over renters.
but it is also obvious it is a political non-starter.
hence, for several reasons, the tax policy center concluded that romney's plan is "not mathematically possible".
| 