Listen up Mitt: Here is a tax cut good for everyone.
Mitt Romney is out to set up a tax-free hereditary aristocracy for the wealthy, especially himself. His campaign commercials lay it out quite clearly. It is very straightforward. It is also somewhat dishonest in that he lays out the steps to the goal, but does not address what the goal is at all. It is not a “bait and switch” trick. It is more of a “bait and trap” thing.
It is all part of his “cut taxes” mantra. He says he will cut capital gains taxes, eliminate taxes on interest and dividends, and eliminate the dreaded Death Tax. There are pros and cons to each of these, but you should notice that these are all ways in which the wealthy, and for the most part, only the wealthy receive, increase and transfer their money to the next generation.
The middle class and the poor don’t get much in capital gains, or interest, or dividends. It is a trivial amount for the middle class and darn near nothing for the poor. The middle class and the poor don’t pay the so-called death tax. (It is really an anti-dynasty tax. It is the only thing between us and a return of feudalism.) The poor and most of the middle class get their main income from wages. Mitt is not going to cut taxes on wages. Not at all. Certainly not.
Wages are triple taxed: first is FICA and Medicare, next is federal income tax, and then there may be state income tax and sales tax. After that, there isn’t all that much left.
We now have an economy that is about to tank, an uncompetitive labor force (partly because of high wages, but also because of taxes and benefits that are built into labor cost), and a developing failure of demand.
What we need is a rational set of policies that will get us moving back in the right direction. Everybody sees that. Even Bush is starting to suggest that a stimulus package may be a good idea.
Candidate Romney is not proposing the kind of tax cuts that would improve our deteriorating situation. He is proposing tax cuts that will actually aggravate and worsen it, but at least he would be able to shelter his own wealth and pass his economic power on to the next generation undiminished by anti-dynasty taxes.
Why would anyone be surprised? That is his demographic, his pocketbook, and his family. It is clearly best for him, so he thinks it must be the best for everyone. How could you possibly disagree?
How about a tax cut that would actually help. Suppose we exempt the first $10,000 in wages from FICA.
Think about it: wage earners would get an immediate increase in their take-home pay. Labor costs would be reduced, thus improving our competitive situation – only a little maybe, but an improvement none the less. Any improvement will be helpful. Small business profits would be improved. There would be more incentive to hire, reducing unemployment.
This is a WIN-WIN-WIN. Workers win, employers win, the economy wins.
So listen up, Mitt: Quit trying to exempt yourself from taxes and support this tax cut.
This one works for everybody.
Filed under: Economics, Mitt Romney, Politics | Tagged: tax cuts
Not that I don’t like the idea, but I doubt a single democrat would go for a plan that reduces the contributions to Social Security. It is already in danger of being underfunded and unfortunately there are a lot of people who are expecting to receive this money at some point in time.
Regarding FICA, shouldn’t we get rid of taxes on Social Security Earnings to begin with? And shouldn’t people with terminal diseases be exempt from paying into FICA since they need all the money for treatment and likely won’t receive any benefit from this? (legislation submitted by Ron Paul.)
Actually I think I heard Obama say something about offsetting FICA, but I haven’t got specifics.
Getting rid of the FICA entirely would be a good thing, but it should be done over say a 5 year period to reduce financial shocks to the system.
Social Security funding comes from the same pot as the Army. Nobody talks about the Army going bankrupt. When the money “runs out”, the government will just issue bonds or print more.
This “funding shortage” is a myth, just like the so-called Trust Fund is a myth. Think about it as a concept – just boxes of paper with ink on it. The government can and does make all that is necessary for its purposes.
I haven’t read the whole thing yet. I’m all for ideals, rather than ends. However, given that there are certainly similarly-idealistic things (and I do think cutting taxes is ideal across the board, say, to 0) that are more progressive, I think they deserve precedence. I’ve not formalized that belief before now, so I’m pretty pleased with it.
[...] to hear it. This is crazy…. Double taxing and triple taxing our heavily depreciated income… Hey Mitt, here is a better tax cut The Political Inquirer Letting our own brothers and sisters die and get hurt in an unjust, unnecessary war and killing [...]