The problem is that no qualified individual can receive a Republican presidential nomination in 2012. All Washington Republicans have embraced crank economics, the idea that marginal tax rates on the top 1% are the be-all and end-all for economic growth. I mean, this is a little silly on its face, right? It certainly has no empirical support.
The twist though, is that most people flat-out don’t believe the mathematical implications of the Romney or the Ryan tax plans. These plans are so extreme that any neutral description of that prompts suspicions of bias: people figure that Romney can’t possibly be raising taxes on the middle class as he lowers taxes on the top 1%. When the Priorities USA Super PAC tried to inform voters about Paul Ryan’s similar plan, Robert Draper reports that “the respondents simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing.” Mitt Romney’s Plan to Screw the Middle Class – Mother Jones
The second problem is that embracing crankery has all sorts of terrible knock-on effects. We have a common, collective interest in full employment and shared prosperity, and this applies to the CEOs in the donor class as well. But a narrow focus on redistributing income upwards tends to crowd out well grounded policies derived from textbook economics. When Washington Republicans decimate the US’s credit rating by refusing to raise the debt limit, nobody wins. And countercyclic fiscal policy is exactly the sort of thing required when monetary policy has lost its traction. But such concerns are dismissed by Washington Republicans, who have said flat out that their top priority is denying Obama a 2nd term. Not cutting taxes, not growing the economy. No: screwing the opposition is what they care about.
Romney is, quite literally, running on how he plans to fix the tax situation- and that fix appears to be to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for lowered taxes on the wealthy. As such, his personal tax situation is very important- if not factually, then emotionally. If he’s paid a smaller percentage than most of the population, why should we allow him to write himself an even larger cut?
Few people are claiming that he’s done something illegal- except to comment that 2009 included a tax amnesty which he might have taken advantage of (and even *that *wasn’t illegal- at least, it wasn’t after the amnesty was issued). We’re just saying that his past taxes are decidedly *relevant *to the election.
I’m sure you know this already, considering it’s come up in just about every thread on this subject.
Is Romney “secretly” brilliant? I think he’s probably actually a pretty smart guy. Bain doesn’t typically hire idiots, nor make them partners or managing directors or whatever his title was. And you generally have to be pretty bright to run a successful private equity firm like Bain Capital. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with his politics.
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. The pundits and the great unwashed public are confusing tax avoidance with tax evasion; the former is legal, the latter is not.
Actually, quite a few people are saying exactly that–that he is refusing to disclose his returns because they conceal some impropriety.
We’re not confusing shit. Nobody is saying that Romney broke any laws. I would be quite amazed if he did. What we do want to know is how much of his income he actually paid in taxes. When you base your entire tax policy around the theory that “we can’t tax the Job Creators, Hallowed Be Thy Name” and then have it exposed that this so-called Job Creator paid very little taxes in the first place, it sort of blows a hole in that theory. If Joe Sixpack is busting his ass trying to make ends meet and discovers that Mitt Mommy Jeans Romney is paying half the percentage of his income in tax that he does, that is going to make a difference in the election. We also want to know the nature of his tax dodges, regardless of how legal they are. Where is he investing his money? Syrian nerve gas factories?
You know, maybe it’s time, here on this forum where there are supposedly a greater than average proportion of intelligent people, to crush this liberal shibboleth once and for all:
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN’T TAX WEALTH.
Therefore, “tax cuts for the (evil) rich” blah blah blah is a non-starter. We tax EARNINGS at the federal level.
Therefore, in Romney’s case, if he had a year or years when he had no taxable income after whatever offsets he was allowed, he owed no federal tax. Even if he was filthy rich.
No, he is funding the Republican conspiracy to bring about the end of the world through global warming and working third world children to death in underground factories.
Romney’s point is valid, whether or not a populist rich-man-hating mindset allows for it. Taxation removes capital from capital markets, and those capital markets drive the economic engine that allows the middle class to prosper. He would argue that he took advantage of US tax policies that were constructed precisely with that idea in mind–to encourage the (re)investment of capital. These were his tax “dodges,” as you put it.
Untrue. Many people would be considered wealthy due to the value of non-income-producing assets such as real property, but their incomes are modest or even negative. (And don’t confuse appreciation with realized income.)
If you don’t understand that the federal tax code treats the man who owns a million dollars differently from one who earns that much, well…
I’m sure the gated communities are chock full of people with no income. If only we didn’t tax them so much, just think of all the people they could hire…
The available jobs are a function of many factors, the current taxation structure being just one of those. Also, when you say “where are the jobs?” you are making the fundamental logical error of not realizing that the job market could easily be much worse if taxes were higher than they are now; thus, the policy of low tax rates could be said to foster job creation, even if all it does is change the job market from “terrible” to “lousy.”
No need to make a silly distortion. There are many, many people of otherwise modest means who own property to the extent that they could be considered “wealthy.” They don’t all live in gated communities.
And to repeat, if they have no income, we don’t tax them.
The issue is not whether he evaded his taxes though. As has already been explained to you, a large part of his campaign hinges on the idea that we need to lower taxes on the wealthy so they will magically create jobs. If he paid 11% or 13% or whatever on a year he knew he’d be scrutinized, and far less than that during the course of normal business, that certainly takes the wind out of the idea that the rich are paying prohibitively high taxes, and sort of demonstrates the opposite narrative which is that they’re all fleecing us and paying next to nothing.
I specifically used the word “wealthy” to avoid calling them “the upper class”, because of the connotations of that term- a higher income doesn’t indicate more class. However, if you insist:
Romney earns a lot of money. He wants us to give him the power to further decrease the amount of taxes he pays on those earning. Therefore, exactly how much or how little he’s paying is entirely germane to the discussion.
If he didn’t make any money over the years that he won’t release, then why not show it to us?
The only answer that comes to mind is that he’s been advised that refusing to release the tax information is less damaging than the actual tax returns. That right there should be a big warning sign- one that, sadly, his supporters won’t bother to pay attention to.