Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who is on the Republican Partyparty, has a different approach to lowering individual tax rates than former presidents such as President Ronald Reagan. Many Americans, including Bloomsburg University students, are baffled by the promises and proposals that Romney has put together.
In this presidential election, Romney has proposed a tax cut of more then $4 trillion over a ten-year span. He has also proposed an across-the-board 20 percent reduction in individual income tax rates and the elimination of estate tax, alternative minimum tax and taxes on capitol gains.
There are also dividends and interest for those earning less than $200,000. This means that the corporate tax rate would come down by at least 25 percent. Tax experts are stating that Romney is a mirage because he plans to achieve this tax rate by not raising revenue and by limiting tax preferences. Although Romney states this, he has yet to specify any.
Kylie Vuksanic who is an exercise science major says, “I think that Romney fell off of his stool a couple of times. I don’t understand how these numbers match up.”
This statement is true. Mitt Romney’s numbers do not match up. Republican economist, Martin Feldstein had all intentions of defending Romney. He decided to do his own study showing Romney’s math has the potential to work out nicely, but it did not end the way that Feldstein had insisted. Romney’s stance was to raise taxes not, $250,000 as he promised, but $100,000 a year. This means that Romney would have to raise taxes on a huge piece of income below $250,000 a year.
After speaking with Bloomsburg student, Callie McCabe, she stated, “Romney is dancing around the truth and is only trying to get ahead of the game.”
In a recent interview with Romney, George Stephanopoulos tries to get to the bottom of the false numbers brought to the table by Romney. Romney cited the study by Feldstein, so he took credit for the numbers being re-evaluated.
Stephanopoulos states, “In his study, which you’ve cited, says it can only work if you take away those deductions for everyone earning more than $100,000.”
Romney’s response, “Well, it doesn’t necessarily show the same growth that we’re anticipating. And I haven’t seen his precise study. But I can tell you that we can lower our rates-“
To this, Stephanopoulos responded by saying, “Well, you cited the study, though.”
Democrats are plotting ways to accentuate the lack of transparency in Romney’s plan. One idea is to tie it to his refusal to release
more than a few years of his own tax returns with the charge: “He won’t tell you what he paid, or what you’re going to pay.”
Now Romney is trying to come back with all of his tax rate controversies to say that he won’t raise taxes on families earning less than a quarter million. By doing this, it proves that his plan is mathematically impossible. The question is, can Mitt Romney rise again after this rebuttal against his plan? Will the Democrats take over this campaign and win because of Romney’s mathematical error?