I would like to put my two cents worth into the
almost interminable comment on last Wednesday’s Presidential debate. In the
first place, even though I have never been a supporter of President Obama, I do
not think that he gave as bad an account of himself as both sides have
suggested. To me he appeared to have grown and matured in office into something
much more than the inexperienced but charismatic community organizer of four
years ago.
On the whole, despite disagreeing with most of what
he said, I thought the President did a good job but he was simply overwhelmed
by the knowledge, experience, competence, and conviction of Gov. Romney. Romney
showed that not only did he belong on the same stage as the President of the
United States, but that he also belonged in the Oval Office.
On one occasion the President said that it’s just
arithmetic or math. Nevertheless, few ever bother to do the math when trillions
of dollars are involved. For example, the President as well as most
commentators did not appear to grasp what Romney was getting at when he
suggested that cutting tax rates was not the same thing as cutting taxes. Let’s
look at Romney’s claim that cutting tax rates would not reduce Federal revenues
but actually might increase federal revenues.
Federal tax rates use a graduated scale. There are
currently six different tax rates: 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%. Here’s how
it works. Everyone pays 10% of the first $8700 of taxable income. Income from
$8700 to $35350 is taxed at the 15% rate. The tax rate on income from $35350 to
$85650 is then taxed at the 28% rate, and so on until the 35% rate is applied
to income over $388000.
So, let’s use as an example, an unmarried taxpayer
with a taxable income of $85650. Remember, taxable is adjusted gross income
minus personal deductions. On the approximately $50000 of taxable income over
$35350, this taxpayer would currently pay the 25% rate or $12500. Romney
proposes reducing tax rates by 20%, which would bring our taxpayer’s rate down
to 20% thereby reducing his tax to $10000. Romney’s plan would save our
taxpayer $2500. Multiply that by millions of taxpayers and it adds up.
However, Romney proposes to offset that
reduction by eliminating or scaling back some tax deductions or tax credits.
Suppose the above taxpayer had a $20000 tax deduction for mortgage interest and
real estate taxes. If he was only able to deduct half that amount, he would owe
an additional $2500, thereby neutralizing his savings from the reduction in his
tax rate.
If the taxpayer’s bill remains the same,
and the government collects the same amount of tax, why even bother? In the
first place, there is a question of fairness. A tax deduction is worth much
more to a taxpayer in the 35% bracket than to one in the 15% bracket. Even
Democrats don’t object to this inequity that favors the wealthy.
More importantly, lowering tax rates
does stimulate the economy. Gov. Romney tried to explain it last Wednesday and
I hope that his running mate will continue in the next debate. History is on
their side.
Over 50 years ago, President Kennedy
lowered tax rates and Federal revenues grew dramatically. President Reagan did
the same thing with the same result when he took office. Finally, even the
much-maligned Bush tax cuts did not reduce Federal revenues. In 2002 the
government collected 1 Trillion dollars in income taxes and 1.88 Trillion in
total revenues. By 2007 Federal income tax collections went up by 50% to over
1.5 Trillion dollars, and total government receipts exceeded 2.5 Trillion. In
2007 the total federal deficit was 160 Billion dollars, the same it had been in
2002. Only with the recession did income tax revenues go down to 2002 levels
although total government receipts stayed higher.
Two final notes on the first debate:
First, commentators were shocked that President Obama did not bring up Gov. Romney's 47% comment. I can only guess that the President's advisors must have felt that Governor Romney was prepared to knock that one out of the park. Any major leaguer will knock a 95 mph fastball out of the park if he knows it's coming.
Second, I though that veteran newscaster Jim Lehrer did a fine job of moderating. He allowed the focus to stay on the candidates and kept himself in the background. It was the best debate I have ever watched, and Lehrer had a lot to do with it. ###
No comments:
Post a Comment