G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Matt Yglesias reminds us that Mitt Romney pays a relatively low effective federal tax rate because most of his income comes from his investments. And that’s as it should be, Yglesias argues. Almost all economists believe that capital investment earnings should have tax preference over income earned from labor. James Pethokoukis shows that Romney paid a higher rate than the average American taxpayer – 14.1% versus 9.1%.
It would be funny if Romney was so hesitant to release details of his taxes (he still hasn’t released the actual filings for 1990-2009) because he “under-tithed” the Mormon Church. Of course, I don’t believe this. It would just be funny to me.
Romney was slammed for making a distinction between makers and takers. But so did liberal-progressives a la OWS and the 1% distinction and the rhetoric of them “not paying their fair share”. But I find it hard to believe that a private citizen (pretend Romney was a private citizen rather than a public figure) would receive $1.9 million in services and benefits from the nation. Romney’s investments benefit greatly from a strong national defense. His “responsibility” for defense spending should be higher than a poor person in the middle of the country. A strong defense, in structural terms, bolsters capital markets and the value of the U.S. dollar. So a Romney would have to pay a higher use fee for defense. But besides that, what else do people like Romney use more than regular people? I’m sure someone has conducted an analysis like this.