Romney tax plan: Is it 'mathematically impossible' or not?
One study said Mitt Romney's tax-reform numbers don't add up. Another says they do. The reality: It depends a lot on the assumptions made about how deeply Romney is willing to cut tax breaks for the rich, including incentives for investment.
(Page 3 of 3)
For the record, one occasion when Romney stated the goal was in a CBS interview aired on June 17, when he said high-income Americans should continue shouldering the same share of the tax burden they do now.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
He was asked what deductions he would cut.
"My view is the right way to do that is to limit them for high-income individuals because I want to keep the progressivity of the code. One of the absolute requirements of any tax reform that I have in mind is that people who are at the high end, whether you call them the 1 percent or 2 percent or half a percent, that people at the high end will still pay the same share of the tax burden they're paying now."
Romney's critics say he's trying to leave vital and unpopular details of his plan for after the election. He offered a different explanation to "60 Minutes," saying he wants to leave some things open for discussion with Congress, because "leadership is not a take it or leave it thing."
Obama comes in for similar complaints. Neither candidate has talked specifically about major deductions he would cut or eliminate for typical families, although both have said phaseouts of tax-code perks should start with high-income households.
Obama, like Romney, has embraced the idea of tax reform that broadens the base in order to lower tax rates for most Americans. But unlike Romney he hasn't proposed specific rate changes. And where Romney argues for revenue-neutral reform, Obama supports tax reform that raises new tax revenue (focusing on high-income earners) as part of deficit reduction.
RECOMMENDED: Obama vs. Romney 101: 5 ways they differ on taxes