Defending "the man" ...

I'm sure SoTU coverage will eclipse this today, but I wanted to make mention of Mitt Romney's tax returns, recently released, because they tie into the "fair" theme the President consistently echoed last night.

We all know Romney is rich. He's worth something on the order of $250 Million. And we all know why he has been reluctant (until yesterday) to release his tax returns - because he's worth something on the order of $250 Million. And in today's society, I should say in today's media world, that by definition makes him a bad guy. Part of the EVIL 1%. And young people, it occurs to me, are the most likely to buy into the argument/complaint that as a "rich guy" Romney pays an effective tax rate that's LESS than the average American (attention any young people within the households of the respective members Bund). And of course, that is so "unfair."

Lets put that to the "mythbuster" test:

1.) Mitt Romney doesn't pay an income tax, period. Mainly because he's not earning an income. He has been successful enough to live off the returns on his investments. That tax, the taxes levied on investment earnings, is called the "Capital Gains" tax. And it is currently at 15%. What this means is Romney is effectively paying a double tax. The money he originally earned was taxed as income. He then invested that taxed income. When the investment pays off (which it doesn't always do) it is then taxed AGAIN, at 15%. Does that seem "fair?" Furthermore, without exception, each and every time the Capital Gains tax has been lowered receipts (taxes) to the federal government have gone up. So if you are of the mind that government should do more, you want Romney paying even LESS so that government has increased monies to establish heaven on earth. So let me recap this apples and oranges "Romney pays less than the average American" argument with a simple illustration - if I do all my Christmas shopping in December, and Bill Gates does all his Christmas shopping in November, this would be like me arguing that it's not fair that in December I had a higher sales tax rate than Bill Gates. Never mind that Gates didn't make a single purchase in December and thus had no sale to tax, it's simply not "fair." Do you get how absurd this is? Moving on ...

2.) The "effective tax rate" argument.
Joe Trippy, a Democrat strategist, said yesterday "Mitt Romney makes more than 99% of us but pays less effective taxes than 99% of us." Really? Romney's "effective tax rate" (which is the phrase you'll hear as a caveat around the facts in point #1) is 13.9%. Let me repeat, Romney's personal effective tax rate (after the legal deductions, etc his personal situation allows for) is 13.9%. Now, according to the IRS' own web site 87% of Americans pay LESS in income tax than 13.9%. So even were you to make the case that capital gains and income tax are comparable, he still pays more in Capital Gains tax than 87% of Americans do in income tax (and remember, that's money he already paid an income tax on)! And just for kicks and giggles, John Kerry, the 2004 Democrat Party presidential nominee (and husband to the heiress of the Heinz fortune), pays an "effective tax rate" of 13.1% ... amazingly that wasn't a problem in media circles when he ran for president.

3.) Much is made about "fairness", even playing fields, and helping those less fortunate than a mega-millionaire like Romney. And the wide brush used to paint Mitt (and all GOP'ers) leaves one with the image of the Monopoly guy, monocle in hand, laughing at the poor (literally)slobs he's crushing beneath his fine Italian made boot heel. It may interest you to know that Romney gave away 15% of his earnings in charitable donations. In other words here's a man living buy what he preaches - that charity starts at home, and is done better in the hands of the individual than in the hands of government because he more than matched his "effective tax rate" in charity. And for a man whose investments earned him $40 million dollars last year, that's a considerable dollar amount. "Well F. Ryan he's rich, he can afford to be charitable." Ok. It may also interest you to know that President Obama is a millionaire. His book sales have seen to that. And the presidential salary he draws (on our dime) is $400,000.00 per year. More than enough to catapult him into the dreaded 1% of income earners. Mitt Romney's percentage (to make it fair), Mitt Romney's PERCENTAGE of earnings donated to charity is more than three times that of Obama's, and five times that of Biden's.

Now will you hear any of these points made in the press? I doubt it. By the way, the law is the law. And Obama's Party had control over both houses of congress and the White House for the first two years of his presidency. If they thought the rate people like Romney pay is "unfair", then why didn't they simply change that rate? Let me put it another way - who would want a presidential candidate dumb enough to pay MORE in taxes than what is legally required by law? Fortunately no American will face such a voting choice, because Obama didn't pay a cent more than he was required to either.