Reich writes: "At a time when poverty is increasing, when public parks and public libraries are being closed and when public schools are shrinking their offerings and their hours, when the nation's debt is immense, and when the 400 richest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million of us put together - Romney's 13 percent is shameful."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Mitt's 13% Tax Is Shameful
18 August 12
itt Romney says "every year I've paid at least 13 percent [of my income in taxes] and if you add in addition the amount that goes to charity, why the number gets well above 20 percent."
This is supposed to be in defense of not releasing his tax returns.
Assume, for the sake of the argument, he's telling the truth. Since when are charitable contributions added to income taxes when judging whether someone has paid his fair share?
More to the point, Romney admits to an income of over $20 million a year for the last several decades. Which makes his 13 percent - or even 20 percent - violate the principle of equal sacrifice that lies at the core of our notion of tax fairness.
Even Adam Smith, the 18th century guru of free-market conservatives, saw the wisdom of a graduated tax embodying the principle of equal sacrifice. "The rich should contribute to the public expense," he wrote, "not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion."
Equal sacrifice means that in paying taxes people ought to feel about the same degree of pain regardless of whether they're wealthy or poor. Logically, this means someone earning $20 million a year should pay a much larger proportion of his income in taxes than someone earning $200,000, who in turn should pay a larger proportion than someone earning $50,000.
But Romney's alleged 13 percent tax rate is lower than that of most middle class Americans who earn a tiny fraction of what he earns.
At a time when poverty is increasing, when public parks and public libraries are being closed and when public schools are shrinking their offerings and their hours, when the nation's debt is immense, and when the 400 richest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million of us put together - Romney's 13 percent is shameful.
Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written thirteen books, including "Locked in the Cabinet," "Reason," "Supercapitalism," "Aftershock," and his latest e-book, "Beyond Outrage." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
As a retired CEO, I assure you that *NO* corruption was okay among my employees or board members!!! NONE!!! ZERO!!!
Yet we turn our heads when politicians are corrupt, especially if the are spouting our views. Forget that the corruption is killing our democracy.
As a retired CEO, I assure you that *NO* corruption was okay among my employees or board members!!! NONE!!! ZERO!!!
Of course we all oppose bribes that violate the law, but what do you call it when a rich donor contributes handsomely to a politician's campaign and then lobbies the politician to legislate in the donor's interests. Is not this a kind of legalized bribery?
You are right, however, that we should hold politicians to the same standards whether or not we agree with them.
Don't blame Mitt or any other millionaire for how little they pay in taxes. Blame the millions of IDIOTS that voted for the politicians that passed the laws that allow the rich to continue screwing everyone else that earns a modest paycheck.
As Forest said, "Stupid Is as Stupid Does" and we got a whole lot of stupid out there just letting this crap happen.
It is true that Obama gets far more money for small amounts from the middle class and poor. And GOP gets far more big money from politicians.
If we don't vote for either party, we might as well be throwing our votes to the wind.
THe stupid people are the ones who are middle class and still vote for GOP.
Romney and Ryan are planning to cut taxes for the 1% another 12%, making them owe just 1% of their tax.
And the middle class will have to make up the difference, in essence, are giving an extra $2,000. as a gift to the rich. They either can't see, or won't see the way this will hurt THEM.
What you are not seeing is the average American pays from 36% to 45% in income taxes, while the richest pay a rate of 13%.
Don't vote Republican at any level, the states need cleaning up too.
DO VOTE as if your livelihood depends on it, as it certainly does.
is a pyramid scheme
that will make you smile
if you're a pig on top of the pile.
Who do you know -personally- with an (unearned)incom e of almost $60,000 a day?
Romney makes me think of the Beatles' song "Piggies"
Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt?
And for all the little piggies,
Life is getting worse;
Always having dirt to
Play around in.
Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts?
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to
Play around in.
In their styes with all their backing,
They don't care
What goes on around.
In their eyes there's something lacking.
What they need's a damn good whacking.
Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives.
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives.
Clutching forks and knives to
Eat their bacon
And yet that is exactly what the have done.
the 2nd think is the lies fox news peddles as news. and the 3rd thing is the shameless lies that Romney and his cohorts tell so blatantly.
Mean-ness lies, hatred, that is what the GOP does.
I prefer honest answers and compassion. If you have heard the term "compassionate Republicans", that is an oxymoron!
Maybe it should just be called "carried interest", as Romney declares most of his "income" is and then it would not be subject to the usual income tax rates.
This one is going up in my office. If it bugs any of my clients, too bad!
You have to be asleep to believe it, is right!!!
John Dean's book, "Conservatives without Compassion" details the character and attitudes of the far right and it's much worse than we think. They lack a conscience and engage in behavior that harms others with no feeling of guilt or remorse, and rarely consider the risks to others implicit in their actions. They seem to feel no emotional bonds with others, except those who think like they do. They can seem like perfectly decent and reasonable human beings in most situations, but can take bizarrely inappropriate actions to satisfy perceived insults, fantasies, or mere whims.
Vote them out in November, at all levels.
They are no'conservative s' --- they're right wing RADICAL extremists.
We are long past shame here. What could be MORE UNPATRIOTIC and TREASONOUS.
"The trees are the right size here" & "corporations are people too" make just as much sense as his crowing about paying so little to the American government.
Release the tax records now Romney! We need to be as loud & obnoxious as the Tea Baggers are calling for our presidents birth certificate. This is war.
As for morality in tax avoidance, it most certainly does enter into the equation. You call him unprincipled yet contend that morality is not an issue. WTF? The man is running for PRESIDENT and morality doesn't matter???? He's already said he wants to change the tax laws...to benefit him and the 1% and the expense of the rest of us. But I guess that's OK with you because it would be "legal".
Actually, yes, I do worry about paying more than my legal share. I will set aside the fact that as a single male with no children or other dependents I pay an awful lot of taxes that do not directly benefit me. I set that aside because I understand that no person is an island and that as a member of society - regardless of how active I may or may not be within it - I benefit from those things that benefit society at large. Even though I have no children, having a strong education system benefits society at large and therefore makes my quality of life better. There are hundreds of things my taxes pay for that do not directly benefit me, but which ultimately make for a better, more civilized society and that, in the long run, does benefit me.
So come tax time, I don't search for every little deduction that is avialable to me. I don't work the system. I deliberately pay more than my legal obligation because I find that what is legal and what is moral or right are not always the same thing.
We also chose to pay for Catholic school educations for our children (and help pay for some others) all the way through High School, and did not want any government help/interferen ce. We had enough, already, in the tax breaks they gave.
But, if this article is meant to castigate Romney, it is off base. The important question is whether Romney paid all the taxes that were due, and got all legitimate deductions. If so, he did what is required under the tax system.
So, nothing Romney did - based on just the foregoing (but see below)- is shameful on HIS part.
Reich states: "Which makes his 13 percent - or even 20 percent - violate the principle of equal sacrifice that lies at the core of our notion of tax fairness."
I don't know that there is any such notion extant in the American tax system. While that may be one legitimate explanation of the rationale for a graduated or progressive tax system, we no longer have that. Somewhere between 47-53% do not pay INCOME taxes. But they pay a hugely disproportionat e share of their income in SS and Medicare and local taxes.
The tax breaks for individuals and corporations based on types of income do not treat all money as fungible. That is shameful.
Now, back to Romney. His "explanation" that he paid at least 13% doesn't sound like an excuse for only two years' returns.
What I am curious about is whether he ever applied for and got tax amnesty by disclosing overseas accounts etc. Is there any way to get that information, as by a FOIA request. Reich would do better to get after that.
So, you say. Then WHY is he HIDING his tax returns? IF he did nothing wrong, there is NOTHING to HIDE. I still bet a months income he PAID $0.
Just ask Romney to reveal the same number of years of tax returns that Halliburton alumni, Dick Cheney, did in 2000. George W. Bush had no problem revealing the same number of years.
But then, I guess there weren't all that many advantages and loopholes in the 10 years worth they revealed in 2000, whereas there might be a lot more in the last 10 years. Perhaps the real secret is how the two decades would compare.
Makes me wonder if Cheney/Bush would release their most recent 10 years, now.
--I sometimes paid "no income tax," but still paid 14.6% up front on all income--either the whole 14.6 for the self-employed, or half of it when the employer pays the other half. The people who pay "no income tax" aren't all rich.
So, the 12 percent extra that is paid by the person earning less than twenty MILLION dollars is fair and just and an equal burden? I think not. Is that your point Joeconserve?
And there's the 'assumption' many Americans now hold about 'Government.'
Corporate Conservatives-R epublicans have instilled in the American Mindset these past 30 years, that OUR Government is somehow inherently 'EVIL' and ANY Government Spending is now viewed as downright UNAmerican.
Republicans have sold-smaller and 'Smaller Government' as the Panacea of our times. Its accepted as Gospel among Millions. Who even questions it? Corporate Media? Hell no. They talk of it as what IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
I say to anyone-PROVE that 'Smaller Government' through endless deregulation and de-taxation schemes on behalf of the Wealthy Class, and all the For-Profit Corporate Contracting of Government Functions has been anything but an unmitigated Disaster for America.
'Smaller Government' Republican-styl e has accomplished the largest transfer of wealth and power in human history. When 'Smaller Government' became their Umbrella TalkingPoint under which all this has transpired. 1% of Americans controlled~ 7% of the Nation's Wealth in 1980. After 30 years of 'Less Government,' 1% of Americans control ~ 25% of the Nation's wealth in a country riddled with high unemployment, millions of homeless, rotting infrastructure, a tax revenue sucking Corporate-Contr acted Government costing more-providing less, a shrinking Middle Class, ETC!
Consumer spending, 70% of our economy (?), is a fraction of normal so we end up helping them sandbag the economy whether or not we want to, since they have more control than ever on what we can spend (by charging us far more times interest than they get their bail out money for).
Looking at it another way, they have grabbed the federal purse strings, held on through what should have been their failure, by trillions in bailouts and guarantees, then held back the $31 trillion they have stashed off-shore, as well as the trillions here (like the $1.5 trillion in excess reserves). They also hold us hostage with the life saving of a huge percentage of us held in underwater mortgages we get less bankruptcy protection than ever on (while they get more bailouts than ever before).
They have crippled the velocity of money that was part and parcel of real productivity under better rules, rules that even Sandy Weill admits need restoration.
Then they call us the free loaders. Karma could be a problem for them. Gilding the edges and gutting the core will sink us all.
I question it, and just found a gem at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money that does try to chart the decline in the "Velocity of Money" but also charts the dismal decline in "Employment - Population Ratio" that shows what I see locally, many of our most productive and capable people like me who are secure enough that we don't have to work, though, by doing so do not help contribute more to the velocity of money by the benefits of products and services we used to provide.
Like Lincoln, I believe the real producers need a fairer portion of the proceeds from their labor than the "investor/coupo n clippers" that feel entitled to take 4 times as much as they used to. As much as I don't like their advantage (3/7ths the tax rate that the earners pay in the highest brackets pay), I'm much more incensed by the gamblers/specul ators that now take almost 5 times as much as the solid investors. Their habits, and deliberate risk taking on stupider bets than ever, would not have been possible without obscene bailouts for their junk products. My desire to protect and even insure the real investors does not extend to the current 4/5ths that Ayn Rand never seemed to mention.
Hey, Mitt, why don't you spend a day on Lower Wacker Drive here in Chicago during winter, and see how these "welfare queens" live so elegantly in cardboard boxes---and bring your self-righteous running mate along, for a dose of reality........ ....Oh, but I forgot, you ain't worried about the poor.
In an absurd example, if the rate were zero for up to $20 million, and 100% over $20 million, anyone would pay just $1 if he made $20,000,001. That is an exaggerated example of an effective tax rate of .00005%, despite a top marginal rate of 100%.
A more realistic example, in 1944/45 the top marginal rate was (what some would try to scare you with) 94% for anything over $2.4 million in 2009 dollars adjusted for inflation. The EFFECTIVE tax rate for the top earners was closer to 20.7% (not 94%)since so much of the lower steps were at much lower tax rates. See http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24489
Then consider that these guys have bought enough influence to get investment income of billions for some of them limited to a top rate of 15% (about 3/7ths) the rate of people who earn their money in the highest top marginal rate of 35%. Those just breaking into the top marginal rate earn only about 1/4 their income from investments and still pay an EFFECTIVE tax rate of only 20.7% (just like 1944/45 when the top rate was 94%)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States and the previous site if you want see how I came across the sources I used in my calculations.
So it would seem that you are one of the "evil" 1 percenters.
I recall the debates a round or two ago when the millionaire's club made the point that donations to charity would simply stop if they are no longer deductible. Maybe true, but still sad and almost as self-fulfilling ly smug as Romney's doing everything possible to prevent We the People from seeing *his* approach to taxation and fairness. Tax returns, please? Consequences for lying to the SEC, please? Reasons for off-shoring his (undeclared) income and stimulating offshore call centers and jobs, please?
Fair share for America, fair share of taxes, supporting sustainable growth in the USA without exporting wealth and jobs -- well Romney and these things cannot co-exist in print any more than in reality. Romney and "fairness" to the 96%? Oxymoron. Let's "Follow the money" and look at the facts.
...the little guy is paying and the big guys and big companies aren't...and we all...and they all...know that...
...and now I've got to hear Ryan talk about how wonderful his plan for Medicare is...and how perfect it will be for the elderly...when he has well over a 10-year record of doing all he can to get rid of it...
When he says 'smaller government', the first thing he means is (MUCH, MUCH) smaller Medicare and SS BENEFITS...but please don't cut back the CONTRIBUTIONS - WE NEED THEM TO BALANCE THE BUDGET AND PAY FOR THE WAR(S)!!!
ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!!!
...and I think it's likely that he will succeed in making people think that 'his way' is precisely the solution 'we seniors' need and that he is 'all for' Medicare...
WHAT AN OUTRIGHT TOTAL LIE!!!
And he's getting away with it...just amazing...
Disgraceful also comes to mind.
Secrecy and obfuscation is the name of the Ryan/Romney ticket.
The real solution is a flat tax, where everyone pays the same proportion of their income. If that were enacted, the tax rate for most Americans would drop. For arrogant jerks like Mitt, it would be a shock to enter the real world. I have an essay on this subject at: http://slrman.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/90/
BUT
NOTHING 'Progressive' to end this Destructive Nonsense will succeed as long as almost all Media Enterprises in America are owned and exploited by just a very few Global Corporate Conglomerates beholden exclusively to THEIR SUPER WEALTHY GLOBAL SHAREHOLDERS whose interest it is to have the entire Republican and their Global Corporate Sponsors' 'Smaller Government' sham of Less and Less Government continue deregulating, de-taxing and corporate contracting evermore Government functions on behalf the the top 400.
Why else would millions of voters go along with such deliberate concentrations of wealth and power against their own best interest?
I think all-pervasive Corporate Media has a LOT to do with it. The total aggregate of American Media is set up to push the agenda and ignore vast heaps and piles of what otherwise in other nations is known as actual investigative journalism and the routine questioning of EVERYTHING.
Entertainment, Print, Broadcast, Cable- Americans are now slathered 24/7 with plenty of now stop and off-the-cuff how matter-of-fact the concept of smaller and 'Smaller Government' is 'THE WAY FORWARD'.
Who in American Media even questions the idea OR the now right-in-your-f ace OUTCOME of it all..?
In America, 'Government is Evil and Corporations do it better' is typical, routine Business Chatter.
Go Figure!
I love to hear about "values" from people who constantly skirt the edge the law while claiming to do what the law requires--after it is modified to make life even greater for them. Within the last decade, ca. 7 years ago, a group dubbed the "Benedict Arnold Billionaires" were allowed to repatriate earnings from their foreign off-shored enterprises at a puny 5.25% tax rate instead of the minimum 33% they should have paid. No doubt they wrote off the capital expenses associated with off-shoring American jobs and enjoyed multiple tax credits and deductions at quite a tax saving. To give this country a final one-fingered salute to heaven, bought and paid for members of Congress allowed their benefactors to toss some chump change into the pot to mollify the masses. Frankly, I am surprised that vigilanties aren't running our elected representatives cum ladies of the night and their corporate pimps out of town on a rail after tarring and feathering them.
And the dolts who do not think transportation, education, infrastructure, libraries , museums or the arts are worth supporting, but happily continue tax loopholes for the likes of the crass 1% seem to think they got THEIR education etc. and ifnrastructure such as roads, and bridges that did not crash into the Missisippi as in Minnesoita are ENTITLED to it all because of their superiority to the rest of the nation.
Church had an assortment of charities. Would be interesting to me to see detail as to just what deductions MR, the ex bishop, is talking about. I continue to believe the devil is in the deductions.
RSS feed for comments to this post