Whatever percentage of the electorate Obama needs to win over to stay in office, one thing's for sure: percentages have not been kind to Romney.
Take the 14% he paid in taxes on millions in income. Romney defends by saying that his income was already subject to America's high corporate taxes. It may be unpopular, but he's mathematically in the right here.
Consider two companies. Company A makes $210,000, but pays it all as wages to Al--so it'll make no "profit". The company must pay around 5% in payroll taxes, so Al will get $200k, about 35% of which he'll give back in taxes. Total to (federal, state, local) government: $80,000; total to Al: $130,000.
Company B makes the same $210k but calls it profit, and pays it all to its sole shareholder, Bill (Willard) Mitt Romney. But first it must declare that profit and pay 42% to the government. Then Bill will pay his 10% capital gains tax on the rest. Total to govt: 88.2 + 12.2 = $100,400; total to Bill: $99,600 ($30,000 less than Al, in case you hadn't noticed).
It's hard to feel for the millionaire, but it's clear from these simple sums that America's very high corporate tax rate is unfair and redistributionist (a good illustration of just how much higher it is than other developed countries here: http://www.economist.com/node/21548245), not to mention a drag on the economy and a disincentive to investment, and a driver behind high levels of corporate debt (as interest payments are tax-deductible).
Much was also made of Romney's gaffe-claim that 47% of Americans are takers who enjoy more back than they contribute, and would therefore vote for Obama. Put aside for a moment the insidious class implications of the statement and the sneering contempt for 150m Americans (if you can) and consider this.
If income is taxed equally at all income levels, and the benefits distributed evenly amongst all citizens, then it is a mathematical fact that the lowest 50% on the income scale will get more back out of government than they put in (assuming the government's output is equal to its input) and vice versa the top 50%.
And we know that income is not taxed equally; the top 5% of earners in 2009 paid almost 60% of the nation's federal income tax burden, earning 30% of total income (http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0). Or, put another way, the bottom 95% of earners paid just 40% of taxes, on 70% of income.
Nor are benefits distributed evenly, with those in greater need receiving more--rightly so. (Of course, the government may be destroying value, in which case more of us will get less back than we put in.)
This doesn't excuse Romney's contempt for 47% of Americans, but it does support his claim that those at the top of the income scale are already paying their dues.
I admire Obama as an intellectual and a man, and abhor Romney's arrogance and mendacity. If I was a US citizen I'd still vote for Obama, on character alone, and because I don't believe this anemic recovery needs further cuts in government spending.
But it seems to me Romney's been given a hard time where he had good points. Will points mean prizes? Just three weeks to go before we find out!
No comments:
Post a Comment