# 15
Mitt Romney has made two statements recently that are either a change of mind or a rephrasing to hide a backtracking of his own ideas. He may also be trying to confuse the American voter. In this last, I suspect he's succeeding.
1) As president Romney would work to repeal "ObamaCare" (which term I use positively), and would replace it with "RmoneyCare" (which term I guess I just created), which would include some of ObamaCare's provisions...including coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions and coverage enabling both young and adult children (age to be determined) to continue being covered by their parents' health plans. Those are newly added proivsions to Romney's platform, reinstating some of the provisions that would be eliminated if ObamaCare were to be repealed. They are also provisions similar to those in the Massachusetts law approved while Romney was governor.
Has he begun to rethink his opposition to his own Massachusetts health care law? Is he moving away from the Ultra-Conservatives in his own base who want nothing to do with anything that resembles any part of ObamaCare? Is he trying to appear to move toward the political center in order to attract some independent voters? Will he be able to rescue his own candidacy from its current position tied to the tracks while the train is approaching?
Not likely. His Ultra-Conservative base in not a base at all, but a fragmented group of ideologues united mainly by their opposition to Obama and ObamaCare. They have not been strong Romney supporters, and this most recent Romney move is not likely to increase their fondness for him.
2) He said that he won't lower taxes on the rich. He doesn't have to. All he has to do is NOT repeal the Bush tax cuts, and they get to keep what was already approved under dubya. The rich pay no less and they pay no more. However, Romney also proposed a 20% tax cut for "all Americans." While that proposal doesn't lower the tax rate, it does lower the amount of money taxpayers have to pay.
What happens, however, is that rich people and poor people would each pay 20% fewer dollars in taxes under the Romney proposal. The rich would pay much less actual money (proportionately) than would poorer people: same tax rates as each had been paying before the proposed Romney cut, but proportionately fewer dollars. Romney argued that his plan would in effect lower taxes for middle class Americans while keeping tax rates the same for wealthy Americans.
What Romney is actually doing is equivalent both to lowering the absolute tax rate, and also the tax rate that the rich pay compared to the poor. An example follows:
----- -----
Example:
You net-earn $30,000 annually, and pay $3,000 in taxes. That's a 10% tax rate. Say instead that you net-earn $300,000 annually and pay $108,000. That's a 36% tax rate. It may actually be higher, but that doesn't matter; if it is higher, the dollar difference is even more egregious.
Say that Romney's proposal takes effect. The $30,000 wage earner saves $600 in taxes (20% of the $3,000 tax bill from the previous paragraph). This wage earner thus pays $2,400 in taxes against a $30,000 net income; or, an 8% tax rate.
With Romney's plan, the $300,000 wage earner would save $21,600 (20% of the $108,000 tax bill). This wage earner would pay $86,400 in taxes; or, 28.8% tax rate. So, actually, Romney would be lowering the wealthy wage earner's tax rate, from 36% to 28.8%. But that isn't the worst part. The wealthy would pay proportionately lower taxes in absolute dollar terms.
The bottom line is that Mitt Romney is comparing tax rates with tax dollars. He's comparing apples to bricks. If you decide to bite on his proposal, be sure to choose the more edible metaphor (hint: the apples).
No comments:
Post a Comment