« Holtz-Eakin: Repatriation and Other Pro-Growth Corporate Tax Reform | Main | Kaplow Presents The Burden of Proof Today at Columbia »

September 7, 2011

Mitt Romney's Tax Plan: 'Timid and Tactical'

Mitt Believe in America: Mitt Romney's Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth (160 pages; tax policy at 36-51):

The best course in the near term is to overhaul and to dramatically simplify the current tax code, eliminate taxes on savings for the middle class, and recognize that because we tax investment at both the corporate and individual level, we should align our combined rates with those of competing nations. Lower taxes and a simpler tax code will help families and create jobs.

Individual Taxes:

  • Maintain marginal rates at current levels
  • Further reduce taxes on savings and investment
  • Eliminate the death tax
  • Long-term goal: pursue a flatter, fairer, simpler structure

Corporate Taxes:

  • Lower the corporate income tax rate to 25%
  • Transition to a “territorial” tax system

Wall Street Journal editorial, Mitt Romney's 59 Economic Flavors:

Mitt Romney rolled out a major chunk of his economic agenda yesterday, and we'll say this for it: His ideas are better than President Obama's. Yet the 160 pages and 59 proposals also strike us as surprisingly timid and tactical considering our economic predicament. They're a technocrat's guide more than a reform manifesto. ...

On taxes, Mr. Romney would immediately cut the top corporate income-tax rate to 25% from 35%. His advisers say there's already a bipartisan consensus that the U.S. rate hurts American companies, and they're right. Even Mr. Obama agrees.

But on other taxes, Mr. Romney shrinks from a fight. He says he favors tax reform with lower individual tax rates but only "in the long run." His advisers say that means in the first two years of his Presidency, but then why not sketch out more details?

The answer may lie in his proposal to eliminate the capital gains tax—but only for those who earn less than $200,000 a year. This eviscerates most of the tax cut's economic impact and also suggests that he's afraid of Mr. Obama's class warfare rhetoric. He even picked Mr. Obama's trademark income threshold for the capital gains cut-off.

If Mr. Romney thinks this will let him dodge a class warfare debate, he's fooling himself. Democrats will hit him anyway for opposing Mr. Obama's proposal to raise taxes on higher incomes, dividends and capital gains in 2013. Perhaps Mr. Romney feels that his wealth and background make him especially vulnerable to the class charge, but if he won't openly make the economic case for lower tax rates he'll never get Congress to go along. ...

The biggest rap on Mr. Romney as a potential President is that it's hard to discern any core beliefs beyond faith in his own managerial expertise. For all of its good points, yesterday's policy potpourri won't change that perception.

September 7, 2011 in Political News, Tax | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef01539168252d970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mitt Romney's Tax Plan: 'Timid and Tactical':

Comments

Wow, the Wall Street Journal sure seems antagonistic toward Mitt Romney. This is puzzling since most of Romney's plan would be considered the Journal's wishlist if it had come from anyone else. Didn't the Journal sing high praises to Huntsman's similar tax proposals just a few days ago?

Posted by: S | Sep 7, 2011 5:03:04 PM

So zero capital gains for those who make under 200K will have no real effect? This says it all about the level of income that makes capital gains. Romney has no chance.

Posted by: Franklin | Sep 7, 2011 5:06:06 PM

I'm starting to think Romney thinks he can move sort of to the center & win New Hampshire like McCain did. Then maybe he hopes the social conservatives & fiscal hawks will split up the victories in Iowa & S.C., leaving him as the only clear leader. Dunno if it'll work..

Posted by: American Delight | Sep 8, 2011 1:09:41 AM

"Timid and tactical" wins about 70% of the time.

Posted by: Michael Livingston | Sep 8, 2011 11:02:32 AM

1. 80% of life is showing up. "Timid and tactical?" I dunno.

2. "Lower taxes and a simpler tax code will help families and create jobs." Prove it. If this were true, there should have been a huge boom in job creation in 1982, 2002, and 2004. Didn't happen.

3. Go big or don't go. This is the time and place to propose elimination of the corporate income tax entirely. Make up the revenue loss with a revenue-neutral national sales tax. It would probably eliminate jobs rather than create them (bye-bye CPAs and tax lawyers). But the reduction in economic distortions, corporate tax-avoidance costs, and whining from the Chamber, WSJ, and NAM would be well worth it.

Posted by: Publius Novus | Sep 8, 2011 11:28:31 AM

It means that the corporate types who really run the Republican Party have turned their support to Governor Perry.

Unless he wants to hang on in hopes of a George Romney type gaffe, (George was front-runner in 1968, stated that he had been "brainwashed" to support Vietnam war and lost nomination). Mitt might as well hang it up.

Posted by: Jim Harper | Sep 8, 2011 2:12:53 PM

Did anyone actually read the Romney proposal on territorial versus worldwide taxation? The Romney proposal asserts that there is a substantive difference between the two systems. But the authors of the Romney proposal are clearly not international tax experts. If one compares the two systems, for example, the French territorial system versus the U.S. system, the treatment of foreign earnings is essentially comparable. Under the French system, only dividends from high tax jurisdictions are free of French tax (although a small portion of expenses are disallowed). The U.S. tax credit system, by allowing FTCs, essentially eliminates tax on repatriated earnings. The U.S. and French tax system treat earnings sheltered in low-tax jurisdictions as if earned in the home country. Treatment of branches is equally comparable. The salient point is that under either system, investment in high-tax jurisdictions is encouraged while hiding earnings in low-tax jurisdictions is attacked. If the U.S. adopted the French territorial system, I doubt that U.S. multinationsls would be in any better position. Perhaps reforming certain aspects of Subpart F be more in tune with helping U.S. overseas competitiveness.

Posted by: karl eschelbach | Sep 29, 2011 10:57:33 PM