Mon, May 21, 2012, 12:48 PM SGT - Singapore Markets close in 4 hrs 12 mins

Romney Proposes Slashing Top Tax Rate to 28 Percent

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, seeking to kick-start his presidential campaign among recalcitrant conservatives, will propose cutting the top income tax for individuals to 28 percent, advisers said today.

Romney's earlier economic plan called only for preserving the current top tax rate of 35 percent, while holding out the promise of lower rates later in an overhaul of the tax code.

But facing a major challenge from upstart Republican rival Rick Santorum, he has chosen to outline such an overhaul today in Arizona ahead of critical Feb. 28 primaries there and in Michigan - and before a televised debate Wednesday night in Mesa.

Romney's top economic adviser, Glenn Hubbard, said the plan would cut all six current tax brackets - 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent, depending on a taxpayer's income - by the same proportion of 20 percent. That would produce this new set of tax brackets: 8, 12, 20, 22.4, 26.4, and 28 percent. "It's a marginal rate cut for every American," Hubbard said.

But he added that Romney is committed to making his plan both "revenue neutral" - meaning it won't add to the budget deficit - and "distributionally neutral" - meaning that it won't shift the tax burden from upper-income Americans to middle and working class Americans. Since the largest benefits from rate reduction would go to upper income taxpayers, so will the burdens of "base broadening" reductions in existing deductions needed to keep the government from hemorrhaging revenue, he explained.

Reducing large tax deductions, such as the ones for home mortgage interest and state and local taxes, is politically treacherous because of their popularity with voters and elected officials alike. For now, at least, Romney will dodge any potential backlash by avoiding any specifics.

Romney will pledge to work with Congress on "limiting them," Hubbard said, but "it is not his intention to take on any specific deduction or exclusion and eliminate it."

Romney has praised the work of President Barack Obama's Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission, and criticized the Democratic incumbent for ignoring its work. But Romney is also rejecting the commission's recommendation that tax overhaul produce increased government revenue to cut the deficit, while embracing its recommendation to cut the top tax rate to 29 percent or lower.

Hubbard contrasted Romney's "pro-growth" plan with Obama's proposal to raise taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 and households earning more than $250,000. He argued that would hurt economic growth by crimping small businesses, many of which file under the individual tax code.

Hubbard, who advised former President George W. Bush and now is dean of the business school at Columbia University, also cast the Romney plan as superior to Santorum's.

The former Pennsylvania senator would also cut the top individual rate to 28 percent, the level it reached after Congress and the White House agreed on a tax overhaul plan during Ronald Reagan's presidency, which preserving only one more tax bracket of 10 percent. In the name of "national security," Santorum has also proposed a zero tax rate for manufacturing businesses as a means of preserving and expanding that economic sector.

The Santorum plan would dramatically expand the budget deficit, Hubbard said, and the zero rate for manufacturing would result in "significant capital misallocation."

"Net-net, it's a job destroyer, not a job creator," Hubbard said.

Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has proposed an optional "flat tax" system of 15 percent, have accused Romney of timidity. With his new proposal, Romney seeks to counter that charge in advance of the Arizona debate.

Romney's plan aims to balance two competing priorities of different Republican factions. By proposing to cut the top rate, he bids for support among supply-side conservatives who contend that lower marginal rates are the key ingredient for producing economic growth.

But by vowing to offset the loss of revenue by eliminating some deductions, he responds to concerns among deficit hawks about expanding the tide of red ink that has the federal government spending an estimated $1.3-trillion more than it takes in this year.

And by insisting that those unspecified reductions will fall most heavily on the affluent, he seeks to limit his own exposure as a wealthy former financial industry executive who himself has paid taxes at only around the 15 percent rate because most of his income comes from capital gains. Romney would maintain the current 15 percent rate on dividends and capital gains.

Obama has proposed to tax the "carried interest" received by many hedge fund and private equity executives at higher ordinary income rates rather than as capital gains, arguing that current law gives them an undue advantage. Hubbard said a President Romney would ask his treasury secretary to study the "devilishly hard question" of whether current law should change and tax some of that income at ordinary income rates.

Romney had previously proposed eliminating capital gains taxes on taxpayers earning less than $200,000. That drew fire from some conservatives, and campaign rivals such as Gingrich, on grounds that gave unwarranted preference to a specific group and would have a small economic impact since those taxpayers receive relatively little in capital gains anyway.

Romney also proposes to eliminate the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax, while cutting the top corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent.

Hubbard said three different revenue streams would keep the plan from increasing the budget deficit: the "dynamic" effects of economic growth, the additional income that would be subject to taxation through "base broadening," and spending cuts Romney plans that would reach $500 billion per year by 2016. The campaign promised more specifics on those spending cuts within the next week.

In advance of Romney's tax plan, Obama's Treasury Department proposed its own corporate tax overhaul plan cutting the top corporate rate to 28 percent by eliminating some existing corporate deductions. Part of the Obama plan includes a minimum tax on the overseas income of U.S.-based corporations.

Hubbard, accusing the administration of a "full-throttle attack on multinationals," said Romney will propose shifting to a territorial system that would not tax corporate income earned overseas.



More From CNBC
 

42 comments

  • STEVEN, lewisburg wv  •  Marlinton, United States  •  2 months ago
    man, i have voted republican for many years, but they just are not getting it. It is the middle class that tend to spend almost all that they earn. The rich put it all in bonds and funds, no circulation. no tax revenue. They need to close the loopholes and stick with the current tax rate.
    • dcoutsider 2 months ago
      Read the article again. Romney wants to close the loopholes.
    • lor 2 months ago
      Stephen appreciate your honesty. Most republicans keep repeating two or three phrases without considering what they really mean. I hope you change your mind this time around and vote democrat until republicans come up with a candidate with a different view than the ones they have now.
  • Scott  •  2 months ago
    That's just what we need - make overseas earnings even more attractive and cut taxes the most on the richest. Keep talking Romney and maybe eventually the middle class people who continue voting Republican, despite the raping they have received from the Republicans over the last generation, will wake up and figure out what's happening to them and who's doing it.
  • freelancer  •  Cranbury, United States  •  2 months ago
    I am a republican, but Romney just lost my vote. I was on the fence with supporting him.. But this does it for me. Heck! I will even vote for Obama if Romney is the nominee to make a point to GOP on the candidate choice next time.
  • A Yahoo! User  •  Santa Clara, United States  •  2 months ago
    Is this guy stupid. All tax brackets get a 20% cut. If this guy is not smart enough to know that a 20% reduction in taxes on a million dollars in the top bracket is a hell of a bigger break than the 20% reduction on 14,000 dollars how could he ever be President. Oh yea, he is just another politician selling a story. How about a tax code where all deductions are eliminated. Everyone gets the first $50,000 tax free as the only deduction and everyone pays 20% on income above that. Income is income whether its from wages, rentals, investment or any other source. Too easy??
  • lux_lux  •  2 months ago
    I'm all for lowering the corporate tax rate if incentives / requirements are made for those companies to hire some more American people (not more workers overseas)!! Many people have lost everything over the last five years- their homes, their savings, their jobs. If you aren't working, you don't worry too much about getting your taxes reduced.
  • Money Multiplier Man  •  2 months ago
    so would he end the standard deduction too?
  • Long live obama and thank ...  •  2 months ago
    ***** Another proof that republicans are the stooges of the top 1%
    • MM 2 months ago
      you comment is proof your an effin a-whole.
    • robert 2 months ago
      MM your a idiot.
    • Wyliecoyote 2 months ago
      Dem's and the GOP are both playing for the same team(the top 1%), see Obama wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 28%(see article on Yahoo), heck even Bush did not do that..........and the Right wing claims Obama is a marxist haha, what a joke, Reagan was a marxist compared to Obama. That's how far to the right the Dem party has moved, they are like the moderate GOP was 20 years ago, and the GOP in the 1970's? They were radical liberal socialist by comparison to todays Dem party. Why the change? 1% have long manipulated things and they are doing a fine job, bootlickers and super PAC's all over the place.
  • Honda Accord Driver  •  Beaverton, United States  •  2 months ago
    All the candidates have the same plan... cut taxes now and we promise to cut spending somewhere later on. Did they not pay attention for the last several years? A group of 12 congress can't even agree on how to cut spending by $1.2 trillion over 10 years, when they should be figuring out how to cut that much in a single year. How are they going to get a majority of house and senate to cut spending to pay for all these tax cuts?
  • keithorama  •  San Diego, United States  •  2 months ago
    I like it!
    • fred 2 months ago
      Fascist!
  • WaryInvestor  •  2 months ago
    Looks like the presidential sweepstakes has reached the "tell them what they want to hear" stage. As to Obama's latest push to reduce the corporate tax rate, I ask why he has waited this long to do it. One possibility: the corporate donors to his campaign have already made their commitments. Do you suppose?
    I - for one - will stop listening to all of them for the rest of the year and judge them by their records and actions rather than what they say leading up to Election Day.
  • bill  •  2 months ago
    So, Romney would lower the tax cuts mainly for the rich without specifying compensating revenue increases needed to avoid ballooning the deficit. How stupid does he think we are? Once elected, he would cut the deductions for lower and middle income tax payers in order to pay for the tax cuts for the rich. He has said so!
    • Reality is here 2 months ago
      Bill,

      How stupid are you? History has proven that higher tax rates do not yield higher tax revenue. It has been proven time and time again. It is a concept that liberals just do not grasp. In addition we currently have more tax revenue now than we did under the clinton years
    • robert 2 months ago
      How are we going to pay for this. Less revenue, bigger deficits. The deficit tripled under Reagan and doubled under Bush Jr because of tax cuts. It`s a funny thing that when a democrat president is in office deficits are a big problem, when a republican is in it`s no big deal.
  • Wyliecoyote  •  2 months ago
    Doesn't he mean 17%? Because 17% is the rate that the top 100 richest people in the USA pay..........
  • CoRealist  •  Denver, United States  •  2 months ago
    Rich guy proposing to increase his wealth. The amazing thing is that there are plenty of people on this site cheering him on.
  • fred  •  Huntsville, United States  •  2 months ago
    Bas__rd!
  • Hoggy  •  2 months ago
    If slashing the rate would make him pay more, I'm all for it.
    • Kathy 2 months ago
      And how exactly would that help you or the country? Increasing taxes on the wealthy will have no benefit whatsoever. If the top 1% was taxed at 100%, the resultant tax revenue would not keep up with runaway spending. If you really want to be successful, you should focus on your own affairs. The wealthy 1% have done so, and that is why they are financially sound. If you stripped those 1% of all their assets and connections today, they would all regain their status in the 1% in a very short time. Why? Because they have the intangibles, work ethic, and desire to succeed. Those who approach life hoping only to see the more fortunate stumble will never accomplish greatness. Instead, they will remain bitter over their place in society and contribute nothing positive. Unfortunately, there is a growing entitlement population that thinks in such a way. They will all learn very soon that increasing taxes on the wealthy will not in any way raise their own standard of living. In fact, the entitlement population may be even more bitter when they realize that the wealthy have figured new ways to grow their wealth. The 1% will do so as they are intelligent and crafty whether they are taxed at a high or low level. It will always be that way. So don't fight it, and don't depend on the other guy for your own good fortune. Make it yourself.
    • Hoggy 2 months ago
      I'm taxed at 35% and he's taxed at 12%, he needs to pay the same rate that I do, or lower my rate to the same one he pays. Period. I don't care if he won the sperm lottery. I shouldn't have to pay triple the rate he pays.
  • Jomama  •  2 months ago
    I say lower all payroll federal tax to 0% for 1 year and government spending by the same amount the payroll tax would have brought in. Sounds like a good way to kick start the economy!! But what do I know. I'm not a politician!
  • rich m  •  Surfside, United States  •  2 months ago
    Doesn't mean anything unless they abolish the amt
  • Mike  •  Eugene, United States  •  2 months ago
    This is pathetic and horrific. Mutt Rumnerd is pandering to the RICH vote and the well-off vote here. The guy and his NoBrain Trust has got to be kidding. And the purpose of this is to excite the poor and the middle classes?? whose gains will be minimal here while the wealthy make tens of thousands and hundreds of thousand and millions of dollars more???Mutt he Nutjob has lost the race here unless Sanitation Man keeps talking about religion and morality (as if he were superior). There is a report out that Mitt's wife had an abortion. Typical conservative hypocrite who gets what he wants anyway he can and then tries to force a different morality on the peons. #$%$ THEM BOTH. Obama will win but things won't change as long as the Rich are in Control.
  • MM  •  2 months ago
    Another proof that DEMOCRATS are the stooges of the top 1%
  • Ari  •  Towson, United States  •  2 months ago
    I cannot believe they're still pedaling this nonsense. Have they no shame? No wonder he hasn't any chance of being elected. I mean, why not just lower it to zero? They create all the jobs-right?

    We make 200K a year and getting killed by taxes, he needs to figure out how to get my vote, and it's not by helping out those who are already being helped.
 
Recent Quotes
Symbol Price Change % Chg 
Your most recently viewed tickers will automatically show up here if you type a ticker in the "Enter symbol/company" at the bottom of this module.
You need to enable your browser cookies to view your most recent quotes.
 
Sign-in to view quotes in your portfolios.

Market Data

  • Currencies
    Currencies
    NamePriceChange% Chg
    1.2711-0.00-0.32%
    USDSGD=X
    1.6259-0.00-0.09%
    EURSGD=X
    2.0121-0.00-0.24%
    GBPSGD=X
    62.32460.36+0.58%
    SGDJPY=X
    6.10990.02+0.32%
    SGDHKD=X
    2.46210.01+0.22%
    SGDMYR=X
    7,275.1035-13.11-0.18%
    SGDIDR=X
    4.97200.01+0.17%
    SGDCNY=X
    1.2526-0.00-0.22%
    AUDSGD=X
  • Commodities
    Commodities
    NamePriceChange% Chg
    1,591.6017.10+1.09%
    GCK12.CMX
    28.6940.70+2.49%
    SIK12.CMX
    147.760.00+0.00%
    ^XAU
    3.4695-0.01-0.29%
    HGK12.CMX
    91.8899990.41+0.45%
    CLM12.NYM
  • Bonds
    Bonds
    TreasuryYield (%)Yield Change
    0.730.00
    ^FVX
    1.700.00
    ^TNX
    2.79-0.02
    ^TYX

MARKET MOVERS

  • Most Actives
    Most Actives
    NamePriceChange% Chg
    0.6450.01+1.57%
    E5H.SI
    0.1160.00+2.65%
    T09.SI
    1.08-0.00-0.46%
    N21.SI
    1.7450.01+0.87%
    O32.SI
    1.540.01+0.65%
    G13.SI
  • % Gainers
    % Gainers
    NamePriceChange% Chg
    0.3750.03+10.29%
    550.SI
    0.500.04+8.70%
    L5I.SI
    0.4150.01+3.75%
    5TP.SI
    0.1320.01+4.76%
    5CN.SI
    0.350.01+4.48%
    B69.SI
  • % Losers
    % Losers
    NamePriceChange% Chg
    0.128-0.02-11.72%
    5MC.SI
    0.172-0.02-9.95%
    H20.SI
    0.23-0.02-9.80%
    5PP.SI
    12.59-0.79-5.90%
    JC6.SI
    0.16-0.01-5.88%
    N6H.SI