Thursday, August 2, 2012

Taxes, Our Taxes

Texans and possibly other Americans not intrinsically hostile to Texas will recognize the post title as a reference to our state song. No, it isn't "The Eyes of Texas," as Texas Aggies will quickly tell you... that song effectively belongs to the University of Texas. And, I suppose, to people workin' on the railroad.

Anyway, King Mitt the Self-Interested has a plan for your taxes. He wants to cut income taxes across-the-board by 20%, and his "pay-fors" (gawd, I hate that term) are the closing of "loopholes" and the ending of "tax breaks." No, he won't tell you which ones, any more than he will show you his own tax returns.

You have seen Mitt's sense of "fairness" on display in his years with Bain Capital: once you understand their schemes, you'd think the candy jars on Bain executives' desks are proudly filled with candy taken from babies. Stealing: it's the new capitalism.

But of course Rmoney pays his share of taxes on all that money, right? Right: in 2010, on his income of $20 million (yes, twenty million smackers), he paid... wait for it... 13.9%. If you're a typical lower-middle-class American, that's less than the rate you paid in the same year... much less. So Mittens, going into the game of tax-and-switch, has a head start on all us poor schmucks.

But of course his new tax plan will remedy that injustice, right? The middle class will get a tax cut along with the wealthy, right?


The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank, has published a new study titled "On the Distributional Effects of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform" by Samuel Brown, William G. Gale and Adam Looney; the full paper is available here [.pdf] and its executive summary says this:
This paper examines the tradeoffs among three competing goals that are inherent in a revenue-neutral income tax reform—maintaining tax revenues, ensuring a progressive tax system, and lowering marginal tax rates—drawing on the example of the tax policies advanced in presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s tax plan. Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.
The short explanation? Unenlightened self-interest. It's the Rmoney way. Taxes on the top 5% will go down; taxes on the other 95% of us will go up.

The Obama campaign was quick to respond with an ad:

I am the first to admit that Obama has done too little for lower- and middle-income Americans, and his economic policies have been, and will doubtless continue to be in a second term, stubbornly wrong-headed. But I give him credit for this. If Rmoney takes the presidency (word "takes" used advisedly), and we come out of this election paying still more for the luxuries of the über-wealthy, I'll be mad as hell.

(The house demolition behind Our House is really taxing my patience; now I must take a tax break. <grin_duck_run />)


  1. Theses On Taxes: Obama isn't wonderful, but Romney is far worse.

  2. Romney, Reid, Taxes and the Un-Macho

  3. I take it that this will run and run. And is of course far more important than the stupid birther nonsense of the last election

  4. Enfant, thanks for both links, both worth reading.

  5. jams, Rmoney could make it go away by releasing his tax returns and substantively (heh) responding to the TPI analysis. But His Highness doesn't feel any obligation to inform the peasants of where he got his money, how much of it he spent on, er, uncharitable items, and least of all whether he committed any de facto criminal acts in his time at Bain Capital. Rmoney, quite apart from his political party, would be a terrible president; I hope we never have to find out.

  6. Mitt Romney Must Be Losing Sleep Over These 7 Charts:

  7. Enfant, I think you intended to link this article. Indeed, though things are still not great in the American economy, they're not quite as bad as they were for a while. And I always remind the nut-jobs that the recession actually started in 2007 on George W. Bush's watch, though you'll never hear GOPers admit that fact.

  8. Yes, indeed!
    lots of rMoney articles via Bus.Insider, I picked the wrong one, I am sorry!

  9. No problem, Enfant... you gave the title of the article; that made it easy enough to find.



• Click here to view existing comments.
• Or enter your new rhyme or reason
in the new comment box here.
• Or click the first Reply link below an existing
comment or reply and type in the
new reply box provided.
• Scrolling manually up and down the page
is also OK.

Static Pages (About, Quotes, etc.)

No Police Like H•lmes