Please follow link to originals
---------------------------------------------------------
http://robertreich.org/
Mitt’s 13% Tax
Friday, August 17, 2012
Mitt 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.
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.
Paul Ryan’s Faux Populism
Friday, August 17, 2012
On Friday, Paul Ryan, the presumptive Republican
vice-presidential nominee, made the most populist speech of this
campaign season.
“It’s the people who are politically connected, it’s the people who have access to Washington that get the breaks,” he told an enthusiastic crowd of over 2,000 at a high school gym in Virginia.
“Well, no more. We don’t want to pick winners and losers in Washington… . Hardworking taxpayers should be treated fairly and it should be based on whether they’re good, whether they work hard and not who they know in Washington. That’s entrepreneurialism. That’s free enterprise.”
Sounds good, but earlier this week – three days after being picked as Romney’s running-mate – Ryan went to Las Vegas to pay homage to Sheldon Adelson, the casino billionaire who is the poster boy for using money to become “politically connected” in Washington, and getting the “breaks” that come with it. Adelson has promised to donate up to $100 million to make sure Romney and Ryan are in the White House next year.
Much of Adelson’s fortune comes from his casino in Macau, in China, via his money-greased access to Washington.
When China’s pitch for the 2008 Olympics was endangered by a House resolution opposing the bid because of China’s “abominable human rights record,” Adelson phoned Tom DeLay, then House majority whip and recipient of Adelson’s political generosity — urging him to block the resolution, which DeLay promptly did. The next day, according to the New York Times, a Chinese vice premier promised Mr. Adelson an endless line of gamblers to the Macau casino.
The money Adelson has committed to putting Romney and Ryan into the White House is a business investment. Adelson has a lot riding on the 2012 election.
Last year, his Las Vegas Sands Corporation came under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act — bribing Chinese officials to help expand its casino in Macau.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, meanwhile, is investigating whether the Sands Corporation violated federal money-laundering laws by accepting more than $100 million from high-rolling gamblers accused of drug trafficking and embezzlement, rather than reporting the suspicious funds to the government.
Ryan has also been a major recipient of contributions from billionaire energy moguls Charles and David Koch. Koch Industries PAC has donated more than $100,000 to Ryan’s campaigns and his leadership PAC – more than any other corporate PAC, according to a NY Times analysis of campaign records.
You see, Koch industries spans a variety of oil and gas investments – whose value would be compromised if Congress and the White House got serious about climate change.
Small wonder Paul Ryan has emerged as one of Congress’s most outspoken skeptics of climate change. He has also repeatedly voted against energy efficiency standards, including a House vote to prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.
Several months ago, when I debated Paul Ryan on ABC-TV’s “This Week,” he said we need to shrink the size of government because big corporations and wealthy individuals otherwise use government to their advantage.
“If the power and money are going to be here in Washington, that’s where the influence is going to go … that’s where the powerful are going to go to influence it,” he said.
It’s an odd argument coming from Ryan because his proposed budget doesn’t shrink government by cutting benefits and payments to big business and the rich. He increases military payments to defense contractors, for example, slashes Wall Street regulations, and gives giant tax benefits to the rich.
His budget shrinks government mainly by cutting benefits and payments to the poor and lower-income Americans. Over 60 percent of his spending cuts target programs for Americans in the bottom third of the income ladder.
Ryan is correct when he says “it’s the people who are politically connected, it’s the people who have access to Washington that get the breaks.”
But his faux populism obscures the main point. A much smaller government still dominated by money would continue to do the bidding of billionaires like casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, energy moguls like the Koch bothers, military contractors, and other high rollers now actively trying to put Ryan and Romney into the White House.
It just wouldn’t do anything for the rest of us.
“It’s the people who are politically connected, it’s the people who have access to Washington that get the breaks,” he told an enthusiastic crowd of over 2,000 at a high school gym in Virginia.
“Well, no more. We don’t want to pick winners and losers in Washington… . Hardworking taxpayers should be treated fairly and it should be based on whether they’re good, whether they work hard and not who they know in Washington. That’s entrepreneurialism. That’s free enterprise.”
Sounds good, but earlier this week – three days after being picked as Romney’s running-mate – Ryan went to Las Vegas to pay homage to Sheldon Adelson, the casino billionaire who is the poster boy for using money to become “politically connected” in Washington, and getting the “breaks” that come with it. Adelson has promised to donate up to $100 million to make sure Romney and Ryan are in the White House next year.
Much of Adelson’s fortune comes from his casino in Macau, in China, via his money-greased access to Washington.
When China’s pitch for the 2008 Olympics was endangered by a House resolution opposing the bid because of China’s “abominable human rights record,” Adelson phoned Tom DeLay, then House majority whip and recipient of Adelson’s political generosity — urging him to block the resolution, which DeLay promptly did. The next day, according to the New York Times, a Chinese vice premier promised Mr. Adelson an endless line of gamblers to the Macau casino.
The money Adelson has committed to putting Romney and Ryan into the White House is a business investment. Adelson has a lot riding on the 2012 election.
Last year, his Las Vegas Sands Corporation came under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act — bribing Chinese officials to help expand its casino in Macau.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, meanwhile, is investigating whether the Sands Corporation violated federal money-laundering laws by accepting more than $100 million from high-rolling gamblers accused of drug trafficking and embezzlement, rather than reporting the suspicious funds to the government.
Ryan has also been a major recipient of contributions from billionaire energy moguls Charles and David Koch. Koch Industries PAC has donated more than $100,000 to Ryan’s campaigns and his leadership PAC – more than any other corporate PAC, according to a NY Times analysis of campaign records.
You see, Koch industries spans a variety of oil and gas investments – whose value would be compromised if Congress and the White House got serious about climate change.
Small wonder Paul Ryan has emerged as one of Congress’s most outspoken skeptics of climate change. He has also repeatedly voted against energy efficiency standards, including a House vote to prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.
Several months ago, when I debated Paul Ryan on ABC-TV’s “This Week,” he said we need to shrink the size of government because big corporations and wealthy individuals otherwise use government to their advantage.
“If the power and money are going to be here in Washington, that’s where the influence is going to go … that’s where the powerful are going to go to influence it,” he said.
It’s an odd argument coming from Ryan because his proposed budget doesn’t shrink government by cutting benefits and payments to big business and the rich. He increases military payments to defense contractors, for example, slashes Wall Street regulations, and gives giant tax benefits to the rich.
His budget shrinks government mainly by cutting benefits and payments to the poor and lower-income Americans. Over 60 percent of his spending cuts target programs for Americans in the bottom third of the income ladder.
Ryan is correct when he says “it’s the people who are politically connected, it’s the people who have access to Washington that get the breaks.”
But his faux populism obscures the main point. A much smaller government still dominated by money would continue to do the bidding of billionaires like casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, energy moguls like the Koch bothers, military contractors, and other high rollers now actively trying to put Ryan and Romney into the White House.
It just wouldn’t do anything for the rest of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment