"Romney reveals that his tax rate is "closer to 15 percent"
Marvel at the abo e headline, presently "featured" on my Yahoo "News" default page provided by AT&T (ype, I strongly recommend you BOYCOT ALL OF THESE ENTITIES). You don't see what is wrong with this headline? Do I have to do AL of your thining for you? The sory is from ABC "News", now "partners" with Yahoo "News".
CLOSER THAN WHAT? I am serious. "Closser" to 5 percent than to 100%? The headline is STUPID. It gets WORSE in the body of the story, impossible as that is to believe.
The "lead" paragraph--now an AGENDA paragraph for the modern "journalist" rather than a "who, when, how, what" factual paragraph--repeats the same STUPID headline in the body of the paragraph, just sort of haning there, without any indication of "closer than WHAT". As if realizing that they have not yet provided ANY facts, but only a nonsense phrase, ABC "News" repats the same phrase AGAIN (I could never make this up) in the second paragraph, but this ttime actually suggests how Romney actualy said it: ".........closer to 16 percent than anything". Okay, this is STUPID too,, and it is a little hard to believe that Romney ended with "anything", But do you see the obvious queston for a rel "journalist" (:as if they exist now--my CONTEMPT for the entire current professon knows no bounds, or deptsh)? "Mr. Romney, what do you MEAN by 'closer to 15 percent than anything'? What is 'anything'. And why don't you clear the whole thing up by releasing lyour 2010 AND 2011 tax returns. Do you think that voters in South Carolina should have to rely on these VAGUE statements of yhours about your tax rate being 'closer' to 15 percent than to some unstated number.?" See last night's blog article again--this blog specializing in tomorrow's news. Did iI not tell you Romney was heading for trouble in the way he tried to finesse" the "issue" of his tax returns?
No, I am not through with the CRIMES ("journalistic" crime) of ABC "News". What did ABC "News" DO in that "lead" paragraph, besides REPEAT the headline and the phrase that would be quoted more completely in the very next sentence? What did I tell you? I told you that the "lead" paragraph is ow the AGENDA paragraph. Thus, ABC went on to estalbish the AGENDA of ABC. Thus, the rest of the lead paragraph was devoted to saying that Romney seems to have paid a lesser tax rate than most middle income people, even though he is 'worth" 250 million dollars.
Talk abut a non-sequitur!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ABC does not care. This is all about AGENDA. What does it matter whether Romney has WEALTH of 250 millioin dollars? This is an INCOME tax. This merely sounds good as an OBAMA sound bite :(how it was meant), but is IRRELEVANT. It is POSSIBLE that Romney could pay almsot NO income tax, because he LOST MONEY in his investments and had not other type of income. IF ABC had reported the FACTS, they would not have had this problem. But they were NOT INTERESTED in the facts.
Waht Romney apparently actually said was that most of his income (which I think you can therefore assume was substantial, although the tax return itself is the BEST EVIDENCE of these things) came from INVESTMENTS, and that therefore his tax rate was close to the clapital gain/dividend rate of 155^. You will recall that Warren Buffett--also earning his money mainly from investments--claimed that he had a tax rate of 15% (also apparently without releasing the actual tax return, but this blog has already conclusivelyl shown that Warren Buffett is a DISHOENST POILITICAL HACK). ABC could have FACTUALLY reported what Romney actually said, with a less stupid headline, and THEN mentioned that Warrn Buffett says he paid about the same kind of rate for the same reason. This would have actually fit the ABC agenda as well, or better, than what they actually ddi, but these people are INCOMPETENT---as well as being partisan political hacks.
Yep. The real questin here is WHY Mitt Romney , and other "rich" people, might be paying a low effective tax rate. And does this mean we should CHANGE tax olicy toward some sort of a "flat tax" system (cany you say "9-9-9"?). It also shows why the GOP RELIGION that "capital gains" tax rates should be eliminated, or reduced drastically, is so MISGUIDED. It is too easy for these "rich' people to CONVERT what might otherwise be regualr income into capital gains, or to ARRANGE that the income be "capital gains' rather than ordinary income. The present 5% capital gains rate strikes me as about right, although it is TOO DISPARATE from the top ordinary income rate of 35%. However, I think that top ordinary income rate should be 25%, and that therfore a 15% capital gains rate is appropraite (for many reasons, which I will not go into here, but leave it as an exercise for the reader).
This does show, yet again , the absurdity of HIGH TAX RWTES. Romney almost surely has a marginal tax rate of 36%. It doesn't matter, because Romney DOES NOT PAY THAT RATE. That is what happens when you RAISE TAX RATES, or keep them too high. PEOPLE AVOID THE HIGHER RATE. It is much better to have a SIMPLE tax system, without so many "tax expenditures" (like Obama's "green energy" credits). As stated, I would keep a disparity between the capital gains rate and the ordinary earned income rate, because "investment" is a different kind of animal (with many different forms) than ordinary earned income. But I think the GOP, and too many conservatives, are simply insane to want to "elminate" the capital gains tax rate, or reduce it to almost nothing, when that encourages GAMES to make sure "income" is capital gains income rather than ordinarly income. IF the "flat tax" rate is low enough, I would nto regard it as that bad to have the capital gains rate andordinary income rate at the same level, but I would keep them different if the top rate is still as high as 25%. But what you should see here is that the FACTS help.
Romneyh's tax rate is what it is, and he should eithe keep his income tax returns private (which he is not going to do), or release them NOW (when they can be considered by primary voters). I faovr keepng income tax returns private, but I believe in PRINCIPLE. Romney does not. In all events, Romney's "effective tax rate" has NOTHING to do with Romney (other than, as he said, he got his income from certain kinds of sources). GOP candidates--all of them-SHOULD have to answer why they think capital gains rates should be lower than the rate on high WAGES,, but that has nothing to do with te tax rate Romney actually pays. Is OBAMA voluntariy paying a HIGHER tax rate than the law reuires him to pay? Nope. Neither is that HYPOCRITE Warren Buffett. No. There are FACTS here that actaully relate to real issues, but this AGENDA reporting totally misses the pint (deliberately, because the people of ABC and Yahoo are PARTISAN POLITICAL HACKS who don't WANT to talk about the "tax breaks' OBAMA wants to give to rich people--like his Solyndra pals--because they are interested in political agenda rather than a full discussion of tax policy).
The question remains: Can Romney get away with refusing to release his 2011 tax return until April--after he things the nomination will be decided? Can he get away with NEVER releasing his 2010 return, or will that be April as well? And, by trhe way, how many years should a candidate have to go back? 5? 10? The whole thing is a massive invasion of privacy, and candidates should NOT release ANY of their tax returns. But today's GOP politicians have less courage than that Italian cruise ship captain, who evidently refused to go back in the ship and help the passengers that he had put in danger. That guy is the PERFECT candidate for the current GOP. Expect him to appear as the GOP "establishment" candidate in 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the meantime, Romney is trying to "finesse" the whole thing, which leads to these nonsense statements about his "effective tax rate", and even mroe stupid media absurdities.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).