The Paid-His-Taxes Meme Has Been With Us All Year
August 17, 2012 6 Comments
Special bonus RWCG flashback, dateline Jan. 25, 2012:
But to add insult to injury, we have just recently learned that Mitt Romney paid the amount of taxes he was lawfully required to pay. That is just too much to bear. I was assuming, conservatively, that his tax return would show him to have paid 3x the amount, at least. Imagine my shock and horror to discover that he paid only 1x what he legally owed! Who does this guy think he is.
What you’re meant to notice here is that this meme has been around for months and months and months. Apparently, leftist rhetorical arguments against Romney are so shallow and one-note that they’ve literally been stuck on ‘He Paid The Taxes Required!’ for over half a year with no end in sight. For all I can tell, that (combined with “He worked for private-equity, which ok fine is a totally legal thing to do, but still!”) constitutes their entire argument against him.
He doesn’t claim to have paid 13% of his gross income, but 13% of his taxable income, after all the shelters and dodges. If he owes the IRS $0 he can claim that he paid 13% of it, since 13% of 0 is 0.
I’m sure there’s a point in there somewhere.
Just speaking for myself, the Romney taxes thing isn’t about Romney himself– you’re quite right that if he owes nothing, he shouldn’t pay extra just out of the kindness of his heart– rather it’s about how the rich aren’t taxed enough in general. Romney just happens to be an extremely visible example. People aren’t pissed because Romney isn’t voluntarily donating extra to the IRS, they’re pissed because they assume (and Romney has given them nothing to dispel the assumption) that he’s using offshore accounts and tax loopholes and other stuff which isn’t an option for the average American.
‘The rich aren’t taxed enough in general’ is a perfectly rational and defensible political position to take. Some agree with it and others don’t (for example, I don’t). The specific issue of the capital-gains tax rate can be debated; I have no a priori opinion nor do I know what the magic ‘right’ number is supposed to be. The specific issue about whether there are ‘loopholes’ and such that the rich have available to them that poor people don’t is a fair one but a complex one. I didn’t observe Obama + his Democratic congress doing much to ameliorate things in this regard, nor do I hear the current crop of Romney dissers suggesting what ‘loopholes’ they think need to be eliminated.
But while it is possible to have a rational argument over these things, bitching about Romney, engaging in these fishing expeditions, and writing posts like the one David Simon did, do not qualify.
BTW you contradict yourself in saying that (a) you don’t think Romney should have to pay extra but that (b) there’s something wrong with Romney using available legal means to reduce his tax liability. If there are things you can do to reduce your tax liability, and you intentionally don’t do them, it’s economically equivalent to sending the government extra money you didn’t have to. (For example, if you have a mortgage, do you *not* deduct your interest liability?) So the people taking potshots about Romney for doing such things (and I’ll just assume he – or more accurately, his accountant – did) are being illogical: They ARE TOO effectively saying that Romney was somehow morally required to send in more tax money than necessary, because that’s the only way he could have avoided this criticism.
The bottom line is that this is an empty and vacuous criticism that leads nowhere fast. If Romney obeyed the tax laws, as written at the time he was paying them, none of this should be an issue, and to make it one is a noxious pollutant of the public discourse. Yet the left has been literally stuck on it for as long as it’s been apparent Romney would be the nominee. This is good for no one, least of all them, because it’s symptomatic of the fact that they’ve apparently lazily spent zero time/effort coming up with any other lines of attack.
‘an empty and vacuous criticism that leads nowhere fast … a noxious pollutant of the public discourse’
That sums up pretty much all political discourse on the right and the left.
You’re absolutely right. Dems should stop using this issue to bludgeon Romney, and instead use it to bludgeon tax policy, allow Romney to enjoy his savings and not make it an issue in his personal campaign, instead use it to argue for tax reform at large. But that’s assuming the Dems actually stand behind their principles… and you’re 100% right that ‘Obama + his Democratic congress doing much to ameliorate things in this regard’… I’d go a step further and say Obama is a back-stabbing wolf in sheep’s clothing.
‘I don’t [agree that The rich aren’t taxed enough in general] … nor do I know what the magic ‘right’ number is supposed to be’
If we give Romney the benefit of the doubt and take his 13% claim at face value– that he’s been consistently paying 13% taxes on his *gross* income– do you think that’s too high? Do you really think 13% is an onerous rate for someone in the top sliver of a fraction of a percent? I’ll agree the specific numbers can’t help but be arbitrary, instead of looking for a magical “right” number, we should instead look at the rich side-by-side with the poor: are poor people literally starving to death and/or dying from easily and cheaply preventable diseases? At the same time, do Romney and his social class enjoy such ludicrous levels of luxury that Jesus Christ would cover his face out of shame? If so, that sounds like a situation where things need to be brought more into balance!
“If we give Romney the benefit of the doubt and take his 13% claim at face value– that he’s been consistently paying 13% taxes on his *gross* income– do you think that’s too high? Do you really think 13% is an onerous rate for someone in the top sliver of a fraction of a percent?”
I won’t say it’s ‘onerous’ but yes I do think it’s too high. I think virtually all taxes are too high. A church tithe is 10%, that seems like a reasonable place to set the upper bound re: how much the state should take (in total, ie all taxes combined).
But that’s fantasy of course. Back to reality, the real problem is that angsting over a Romney’s (or Buffet’s) lo teens tax rate ignores the fact that they pay such rates because their income comes from capital gains, not labor. And it’s just too simple to say ‘well golly let’s raise the capital gains tax rate then!’ You can’t raise that rate just on Mitt Romney types, it will have other effects. Will those effects be good for the economy? If so, what is the argument for that? If not why do it? Some people say ‘well i don’t care if it’s good for the economy, this is about fairness’. But I do care, and meanwhile I don’t care so much about the mirage of ‘fairness’. That’s what I mean by the folly of chasing the magic ‘right’ number.
“we should instead look at the rich side-by-side with the poor”
I disagree that ‘we’ should do anything of the sort.
“are poor people literally starving to death and/or dying from easily and cheaply preventable diseases?”
No, not really. I suppose there can be isolated cases of anything. If you know of such a case please pass it along. Better yet, get a charity involved. What this has to do with federal government income taxation is beyond me.
“At the same time, do Romney and his social class enjoy such ludicrous levels of luxury that Jesus Christ would cover his face out of shame? If so, that sounds like a situation where things need to be brought more into balance!”
I’m not the expert on what would make Jesus Christ cover his face, so I can’t comment there, but assuming you’re right, how/why does that add up to an argument for the government to bring (something) ‘more into balance’? What happened to separation of church and state, and where in the Constitution do you find this government power to bring things ‘into balance’?
Best,