I keep hearing conservatives try to say that blaming
Republicans for the war on
women just detracts from the more important economic issues. While I
resoundingly call bullshit on that – because if half your population loses
autonomy over their bodies they won’t be contributing to the economy – I would
like to take a brief break from playing “Hide The Uterus From The Republican”
to a look at the economic side of the argument.
So here’s a quick summary of Romney’s tax proposal for
individuals, borrowed mostly from politifact.com:
- Cut personal income tax by 20 percent on a permanent, across-the-board basis
- Eliminate interest, dividend, and capital gains taxes for taxpayers with an adjusted gross income below $200,000
- Eliminate the estate tax
- Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax
Romney’s campaign website says lower taxes will “stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation,
and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller,
smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in
federal tax and spending policy.”
The libertarian
in me is clapping gleefully and leaning traitorously toward Romney (don’t
worry, the woman in me is doing the diva-finger-snap with a hearty side dose of
eye rolling). This seems to make so much sense. Until you figure out what it
*actually* means.
So a 20 percent across-the-board
cut. There are currently 6 tax brackets, the top of which is an income over
$388,350 (regardless of whether you file single or joint). That bracket
currently pays 35 percent, which would be reduced to 28 percent (Tax Policy Center)
under Romney’s plan. That’s a big difference for say… someone like Romney, who
earned around $21 million in 2010.
About 70 percent
of Americans – those of us in the mostly-comfortable middle – would see tax
breaks of about $4,300 on average. Sounds good so far.
But what Romney doesn’t
say is that he’d allow the tax cuts enacted by the stimulus package to expire. Meaning
individuals in the lowest tax brackets would get to pay more, to offset the
cuts for the rich. Because everyone knows Robin Hood robbed from the poor to
give to the rich. Oh wait, shit. It's a good thing Romney has no qualms about starving children to support his rich friends.
All in all,
according to politifact “18 million people would find themselves in a gap where
the [Romney] rate cut wouldn’t offset the loss of benefits from the Obama tax
cuts Romney would let expire.”
Individuals and families
who earned between $13,660 (single, no children) to $49,078 (married, 3 or more
children) per year would see their taxes go up on average $700 a year. The
approximately 11 percent of filers (those who earn too little to actually pay
taxes) would see their taxes go up by about $900 on average. But it’s ok, because
people who make $1million or more per year will see an average tax cut of
$250,535. Maybe they’ll use some of that saved money to roll around in, while
they cry sad, sad tears for the rest of us lazy folks.
I guess when your
yearly income is $15,000, you should totally be able to spare 6 percent of it to
make sure Romney has new golf clubs, because those golf clubs might lead to a
business deal that might lead to a company that might one day employ someone.
Since Romney is
running on a policy of fiscal responsibility (what the rest of us folks like to
call ‘punish the poor people so rich people can take baths in their extra cash’),
it makes sense that he’d want to cut our bloated defense-spending budget,
right? You mean he doesn’t?
Turns out that
Romney’s plan for the Pentagon budget would actually lead to $2.1 trillion in additional
spending over the next 10 years. But fortunately, if Romney gets his way the
House Budget Committee will make a good start on figuring out how to fund that
by removing $261
billion from food stamp programs, Medicaid, social services and other programs
for low-income Americans.
Work harder,
millions of Americans – hundreds of really wealthy white male fat cats are
depending on you.
No comments:
Post a Comment