From what I've seen of articles on both candidat'es plans, economists differ as to the effect of the future economic growth on the numbers. Candidates tend to put in overly rosey projections that are usually not likely to be obtained. I can come up with any type of plan and if I put in a 4% GNP growth factor I can look like a genius. Just don't come looking for me in a few years to ask me what went wrong.

 

Meteorologists probably edge by economists when it comes to predictions anyway.

I appreciate you posting your numbers.

 

I will go out on a limb , and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're not an economist. I'm not either.

 

Many other economists have studied the plan and said it's not achievable without having to raise taxes on many in the middle class.

 

Your belief is different from those economists. I'm asking what flaw you see in their logic when you say the Governor's plan is a "good plan."

 

No I'm not an economist. If I were looking for flaws I would say there are 3.

 

1. The assumptions about which deductions are going away. There has been no clear answer given by Romney.

 

2. The assumption of growth. The assumptions used in the report I read are very conservatie but even that could be too much.

 

3. The political environment. If Romney could only pass a portion of the plan then all bets are off.

No I'm not an economist. If I were looking for flaws I would say there are 3.

 

1. The assumptions about which deductions are going away. There has been no clear answer given by Romney.

 

2. The assumption of growth. The assumptions used in the report I read are very conservatie but even that could be too much.

 

3. The political environment. If Romney could only pass a portion of the plan then all bets are off.

 

 

 

Let me give you a specific example.

 

 

To help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney's economic advisers, that posits "implausibly large growth effects" from tax cuts.

 

The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney's promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That's why it's "mathematically impossible" for Romney's plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class. [bloomberg View, 8/2/12]

 

Romney Tax Plan on Table. Debt Collapses Table. - Bloomberg

 

This article addresses your first point by taking those deductions away from the most wealthy first. The second point is addressed as well. They used a wildly generous growth rate.

 

You disagree how?

Let me give you a specific example.

 

 

To help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney's economic advisers, that posits "implausibly large growth effects" from tax cuts.

 

The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney's promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That's why it's "mathematically impossible" for Romney's plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class. [bloomberg View, 8/2/12]

 

Romney Tax Plan on Table. Debt Collapses Table. - Bloomberg

 

This article addresses your first point by taking those deductions away from the most wealthy first. The second point is addressed as well. They used a wildly generous growth rate.

 

You disagree how?

 

How do I disagree? Because I choose to believe people who have always been pretty reliable. We all have our personal preferences, I trust the report I read, you believe the Washington Post and the TPC and I'm cool with that.

 

If that's not enough here is an article saying your article is wrong.

 

The Romney Tax Plan: Not a Tax Hike on the Middle Class — The American Magazine

 

I'm sure you can find plenty of other articles on both sides. I just hope we get a chance to see if Romney's plan can work because the tax code has been way to complicated for way too long.

How do I disagree? Because I choose to believe people who have always been pretty reliable. We all have our personal preferences, I trust the report I read, you believe the Washington Post and the TPC and I'm cool with that.

 

If that's not enough here is an article saying your article is wrong.

 

The Romney Tax Plan: Not a Tax Hike on the Middle Class — The American Magazine

 

I'm sure you can find plenty of other articles on both sides. I just hope we get a chance to see if Romney's plan can work because the tax code has been way to complicated for way too long.

 

Thanks for the link.

 

It's not a matter of believing a particular source ie WaPo. They are just reporting what economists and think tanks are reporting. They're not making their own report.

 

Your link and the other 5 or so that the Governor claims are supporting him are taken to task here.

 

The truth about Romney’s ‘six studies’

 

Unless they're lying (I don't think they would) then there are some flaws in Brill's assertions.

Thanks for the link.

 

It's not a matter of believing a particular source ie WaPo. They are just reporting what economists and think tanks are reporting. They're not making their own report.

 

Your link and the other 5 or so that the Governor claims are supporting him are taken to task here.

 

The truth about Romney’s ‘six studies’

 

Unless they're lying (I don't think they would) then there are some flaws in Brill's assertions.

 

I feel very certain there are flaws in Brill's assertions. Look they are all making their most educated guess. From what I read I think so sort of tax reform can work. It will not be perfect and it won't be exactly as advertised.

Too many assumptions are involved in all these economists' analysis to ignore the role that bias plays in all of them. That's why we can get different opinions on the same policy. It's very convenient for the candidates.

Too many assumptions are involved in all these economists' analysis to ignore the role that bias plays in all of them. That's why we can get different opinions on the same policy. It's very convenient for the candidates.

 

Bias is human nature, thus, it's a given.

 

However, when someone puts out the "why" and supports it then I put bias aside somewhat.

 

I've linked the thoughts and MC gave another link.

 

Do you have one that you buy more?

Bias is human nature, thus, it's a given.

 

However, when someone puts out the "why" and supports it then I put bias aside somewhat.

 

I've linked the thoughts and MC gave another link.

 

Do you have one that you buy more?

 

Nope, I don't believe much of any of them. When was the last time you saw any of these economists nail anything? They're always off and it seems like it's usually by a heck of a lot. There is bias anytime there is an assumption. If they support it based on their biased assumptions, what does that prove? I saw an article from some Princeton Economics Professor who actually pointed out some problems with the TPC analysis you noted. I'll see if I can find it. Bottom line, none of these plans ever come anywhere close to what they say they will.

Nope, I don't believe much of any of them. When was the last time you saw any of these economists nail anything? They're always off and it seems like it's usually by a heck of a lot. There is bias anytime there is an assumption. If they support it based on their biased assumptions, what does that prove? I saw an article from some Princeton Economics Professor who actually pointed out some problems with the TPC analysis you noted. I'll see if I can find it. Bottom line, none of these plans ever come anywhere close to what they say they will.

 

Are you saying that we just have to trust that it will work?

As I suspected, Candy Crowley did not backtrack on her claim that Mr Romney was incorrect.

Are you saying that we just have to trust that it will work?

 

I would say it's more of a "make the best/most educated decision" you can.

As I suspected, Candy Crowley did not backtrack on her claim that Mr Romney was incorrect.

 

I really have no idea what she said after the debate but I think she stepped over the line in this instance.

I really have no idea what she said after the debate but I think she stepped over the line in this instance.

 

 

Unusual but she was fair. If she had only said that the Governor was incorrect without pointing out that his overall point of the delay was correct then I'd have a problem with it. She was fair. If it "flustered" the Governor that's a tell.

I would say it's more of a "make the best/most educated decision" you can.

 

 

Obviously, 99.99% of us are not going to hang at the level of economists so overall I agree. However, I think you have to do your homework and not cherrypick.