Some are saying this is the week that Mitt Romney is losing the 2012
Presidential Election, but in fairness they said that last week too. But
Romney's speech, where he essentially writes off the 47% of American voters who
pay no income tax as hopelessly pro-Obama, since they are (apparently) all
moochers and slackers, who feel they are "entitled to be supported by the
government". Now, since this includes most of those on Social Security who are
no longer working, and since Mitt is sixty-five, then next year he could be part
of the 47% himself, since the bulk of his income is investment income, on which
he pays a lower "capital gains tax" than the "income tax" he said that
hard-working Americans pay, to show their loyalty to flag, country and apple
pie.And there is one thing more; most of those receiving Social Security or some kind of benefits paid in to that account by their Payroll Taxes, half paid by the employer, half by the employee (so the total cost impacts their salary). They also pay 1.85% in Medicare tax. So how much does all that add up to? 6.2% employer + 6.2% employee + 1.85% employee = 13.85%. That's funny, that's exactly... the 13.9% that Mitt Romney paid in taxes in 2010. Now in 2011 and 2012, as an economic stimulus the employee paycheck deduction was reduced by 2%, so for these two years their total would be 11.85%. But there are many other taxes to consider. Sales tax, State tax, gasoline tax, alcohol tax etc. Those often hit those of moderate and low income far harder than those of high incomes. So that 47%, not counting those who are retired, unemployed, disabled or in jail, are probably paying as much as Mitt Romney is. Or more.
So what the heck is Romney going on about? The New York Times, in an Editorial expressing their corporate opinion (as opposed to that of one writer) believes that Romney is engaging in "Class Warfare", to try to fan the flames of economic division and resentment, but in his case, for the rich towards the poor, the needy, the disabled. Not everyone reads the Times. I do because a cousin of mine works there and I do business in New York, a city I know well and that I really, really like. My mother grew up in Brooklyn, in a family of modest means, but she was able to commute into Manhattan to attend Hunter High School, a school for high-achieving children of low income, then she went on to Hunter College, which operated on the same idea. There was some justice in it, since her family, parents and children alike, were very active in the Salvation Army, which at that time was really pulling people out of the gutter and helping them stay alive.
There is a long and venerable tradition in our country of reaching out to those in need, not asking whether their plight is a sign of their moral weakness, but judging that for whatever reason they are in a world of trouble, they are our fellow countrymen and women, and that to leave them to rot would be immoral and unthinkable, in a country where such riches exist. In another part of Romney's talk he quoted a friend who said something like "95% of what we need in life we get by being born in America", which is true up to a point, but if that was "all that we needed", then there would only be 5% in need. The math does not add up. Nor does it count the 20% in the country who are retired. But I guess when you are giving a speech to major donors who you believe may trend toward the self-satisfied and selfish side of the social spectrum, that may be what Romney thought they wanted to hear. He does seem to "tailor" his speeches to his audiences, doesn't he?
Arthur
No comments:
Post a Comment