There are two reasons why this analysis might understate exactly how regressive the Romney plan is. First, the researchers started by eliminating tax expenditures for the highest-income groups and worked their way down. But it's impossible to expect Congress would completely eliminate all tax expenditures above a certain level. Second, the analysis doesn't include possible cuts to government spending, which tends to benefit low- and middle-income households more than tax expenditures. If Romney leaves military spending levels near their current share of GDP, the cuts would focus even more on programs that provide services or cash to the poor, sick, and elderly. That's not me being hyperbolic: Poor, sick, and old is simply where the vast majority of non-combat government spending goes.



We can argue over methodology and details, but there are a few things that can't be debated away. First, the Romney plan and the Obama plan both use the Bush tax cuts as a canvas, but from there, they paint very different pictures. Obama begins by raising taxes at the top, and Romney begins by cutting tax rates that benefit the top. Second, there's no getting around the fact that Romney's plan would make the tax code less progressive. "It is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment and that does not result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers," the study concludes.







>