Nov 4, 2012

The Man Without a Plan

www.romneytaxplan.com

It hasn't been easy nailing down exactly what Mitt Romney's positions are on a number of issues.  After re-branding himself as a conservative in order to win an unusually extreme Republican primary, he's tried to reverse course to appeal to mainstream voters, while concealing the appearance of flopping around like a fish on the issues (abortion, for example).  The result is that he sometimes plays hide-the-ball when confronted with simple, direct questions about what he would actually do, if elected.  But occasionally the real Mitt Romney shines through, in spite of his best efforts.

One area where the real Mitt Romney can be reasonably guessed at is tax policy and entitlements.  Here's what Romney said about half of America, at an intimate $50,000-per-plate fundraiser which was secretly recorded:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what … These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. ... [M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
"Those people" Romney doesn't worry about includes people who work hard but earn modest wages, like the waitresses serving Romney while he was insulting them, or the fitness trainers standing by to help him work off the extra calories the next morning.  The 47 percent includes the elderly, the poor and disabled, students, young people working part time, and soldiers serving overseas.  They aren't all permanent members, either:  one-fifth of them are expected to start paying income tax again as the economy recovers.  These moochers are still subject to payroll, local and sales taxes, of course.  Many of them would earn enough to pay federal income tax, too, if not for the Bush and Obama tax cuts.  (Alas, that's an unfortunate side effect of lowering taxes:  it benefits the mop technicians and the job-creators alike.)  And, awkwardly, Mitt Romney himself paid no income tax last year, instead paying the IRS only 14 percent on capital gains of $21 million.  To make sense of Romney's contradictory statements, you have to add a giant asterisk to them:  tax cuts are good *if they benefit the wealthy.  Paying no income tax is irresponsible *unless you are wealthy.

Romney's response to the leaking of this video was a hasty press conference in which he doubled-down on his comments, admitting only that they were "not elegantly stated".  (Is there an elegant way to say, during a sumptuous banquet, that people are not even entitled to food?  Pass the caviar.)  In case that didn't stick, Romney tried to suggest his comments were taken out of context.  (Not so.  The full video has been released.)  When none of these excuses worked, Romney finally decided that what he meant to say about what he meant to say was that his comments were "completely wrong".

But those "completely wrong" remarks are consistent  with his stated policy positions--more consistent than usual for Romney, at least.  Romney's tax plan consists of a few specific guarantees that will benefit the wealthy; mathematically impossible promises about lowering taxes across the board without increasing the deficit; and vague threats to the middle class and poor about eliminating deductions and "loopholes", and "expanding the tax base".  Which deductions would be on the chopping block?  When asked directly if this includes things like the Earned Income tax credit for people with modest wages, the child tax credit, the home mortgage deduction, or deductions for college tuition and student loans, Romney won't say.  Eliminating such "loopholes" would indeed suffice to "expand the tax base" on those free-riding 47 percenters.

Well, most of the 47 percenters, anyway.  We need that asterisk again, since Mitt Romney would give wealthy 47 percenters like himself historic tax cuts.  This is where Romney's tax plan gets specific.  

He will repeal the estate tax, which would benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans who die each year whose estates, like Romney's, will be subject to this tax (it affects inheritances exceeding $5 million).  Under Obama, the estate tax rate was reduced to an historic low (35 percent; it was 45 percent under Bush, and 55 percent under Clinton), but why pay that when you can pay nothing?  Sure, repealing the estate tax would increase the deficit by $29 billion per year, but that can be offset by cutting public programs the wealthy don't need (like Big Bird).  

The other thing Romney will repeal is the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).  The AMT affects 4 percent of taxpayers and is supposed to ensure that wealthy individuals and corporations pay at least some tax.  There goes another $26 billion per year.  Obama's budget will reduce the number of taxpayers affected by the AMT by permanently indexing it for inflation, but that's not enough to benefit ultra-rich guys like Mitt Romney.  

Finally, Romney pledges not to raise taxes on capital gains.  What a relief that will be for so many Americans who, like Romney, made $21 million in capital gains last year while paying less tax than a bus driver as a percentage of income.  By contrast, under Obama the capital gains tax will increase 9 percent (still lower than rates under Reagan) for households with income in the top 2 percent.  Socialism!

3 comments:

  1. Freyguy,

    While I have neither enough time nor energy nor smarts to do a single blog economics course I do want to point out a few things:

    1. The ‘fact’ that it is mathematically impossible to achieve the tax rates was from a single study that was later retracted. Seems they made assumptions that Romney wouldn’t take away certain loopholes. Oops.

    2. Romney is proposing limiting deductions to a fixed amount for higher income people. As such there would be no need for an AMT, the purpose of which is to limit deductions for high income individuals. Oh my!

    3. Limiting Loopholes would go a long way toward making lobbying for special interest tax breaks less important. Can’t have that now, can we?

    4. Estate taxes hardly affect the very rich. The very rich hire lawyers and accountants to find ways around it – yes, those extra lawyers and accountants are the kind of jobs the government does manage to create.

    5. Loopholes and estate taxes also result in an inefficient use of capital, although with the Fed printing so much money capital ain’t what it used to be.

    6. Mostly it’s well-off people but not overly rich people who have built businesses (which often have to be liquidated to pay the tax bill) that get socked with estate taxes.

    7. Uncertainty about the estate tax (which goes back to $1,000,000 next year if nothing is done) causes even people with more modest funds to spend time and money trying to protect what their hard work and/or frugality created. Such efforts are a waste of productive time and energy.

    8. Why is it all about fairness (or greed) anyway? How about what works best for the economy (without being unfair, of course)?

    Well, that’s enough for me. Being a voice in your wilderness is too, what’s the word, taxing. So just a few last thoughts before I ride out of the blogosphere and into the sunset of my so called reality:

    1. Keep an open mind. It’s not a black and white world out there, except when it is.

    2. Challenge your own assumptions, on a daily basis if you can - it can keep you from becoming overly confident. Plus it gives you someone intelligent to run your opinions by.

    3. Don’t fortify your opinion by refuting the arguments of idiots. Just because they don’t know what they’re talking about doesn’t make you right.

    4. It’s hard not to take things too seriously when so many things really do matter… but try.

    I’m sure I’ll think of other things of equal if not greater gravitas that I’ll think of later – it’s a little scary for me that I can only come up with four. By why burden you further? Besides, it takes way too long to figure out what the letter things are that prove I'm not a robot; I may start having an identity crisis.

    Be well, live long and prosper young Freyguy.

    [This comment posted by Freyguy, on the technologically-challenged Fred's behalf.]

    ReplyDelete
  2. One of the thinks I learned going to graduate school at HBS was to never say something in public your wouldn't say to the person concerned face.

    In this case another of the old man and my classmates is the brother in law to Romney's best friend and chief of staff (same year at the old man). Paul Ryan is my congressman and someone I have known well for years. I don't think Mitt or Paul would agree with your comments. Do you know them better?

    The election is over and the world will go on regardless of your political views.

    I've enjoyed this blog since it started by it I encourage you not be be a mind reader opining on what other people will do or in the case would have done...civil discourse with reasoned opinions are useful.

    As a result, I'm "unfriending" your blog. Too bad I enjoyed thinking of the old man and having only girls was interested in how you two interacted.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous,

    Sorry to hear that you are "unfriending" my blog. Before you go, please know that I was attacking Romney the candidate, not Romney the person; "tackle the ball, not the man" as they say in soccer. There is nothing I said in my post that I would not say to Mr. Romney's face, and little that hadn't already been put to him. But if I did meet him, I would welcome the opportunity to have him set me straight on his tax plan. Perhaps he would succeed in convincing me where he failed to convince Businessweek, Bloomberg, the Tax Policy Center, and half the country.

    For what it's worth, I have no reason to doubt Romney is a brilliant man of great personal integrity, albeit one caught up trying to navigate the politics of a polarized country (like all politicians). But he was not running for best-buddy-in-chief. I even admire that he was top of his class at HBS and that he is a wildly successful entrepreneur; but does that mean his tax plan was sound?

    Now, I'm trying to be open-minded about your objection to my post: was it "uncivil"? Well gosh, if so, then what can we say about the comments you and others have made on this blog attacking Democrats and Obama?

    As you may know, The Old Man has been on medical leave from posting, due to pain in his hands and shoulders for the past several months. I asked him if I should lay off the blog until he's back in action, but he said no, keep it alive. I may have even done my Barney Frank impression to cheer him up once, when the pain was bad. He's getting better and wants to blog again soon. Meanwhile, outside of cyberspace, we have wonderful discussions and debates most weeks, usually over Sunday coffee.

    If that spirit has been lost in my recent posts, I apologize. I hope we can continue to not be "unfriends" outside of the blog, even if I've been a real smart-ass on the blog.

    Take care and best wishes to you and yours,
    Freyguy

    ReplyDelete

Tell us what you think!