In a front-page, above-the-fold story this morning, the New York Times reveals that Mitt Romney obeyed the tax laws! He actually took advantage of provisions in the tax code that allowed him to minimize his tax obligations.
This ghastly revelation is followed by an editorial:
The biggest beneficiaries of government largess are not those who struggle along on Social Security payments, Medicare or Medicaid benefits, or earned-income tax credits, . . . Rather, they are those at the highest end of the income scale: government contractors, corporate farmers and very rich individuals who have figured out how to exploit the country’s poorly written tax code for their benefit.
Since Mitt Romney has never held any federal office in his life, let alone sat in Congress, how, exactly, does this redound to his discredit? If the law is an ass—and one could hardly find any law more asinine than the United States Tax Code–the fault lies with the makers of the law, not with those who take advantage of it.
The Times specifically berates Romney for using the provisions of the tax code that allow him to avoid taxes while transferring assets to the next generation. I’m just guessing, but I’ll bet Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the great former publisher of theTimes who died on Saturday, used many of the same provisions in his estate planning.
The Times accuses Romney of wanting to make the tax code even worse by eliminating the estate tax. With characteristic intellectual dishonesty, the Times fails to mention that the estate tax eliminates the capital gains tax that would otherwise be due on inherited assets. Eliminating the estate tax would reinstate the capital gains liability. So the effect of eliminating the estate tax would be to relieve families of the necessity to sell assets on death, not of their ultimate tax obligations. The net effect over time on federal revenues is probably a wash.
Since Mitt Romney is a very rich man, perhaps he—like Nixon going to China—is exactly the man to lead the fight on a fundamental reform of the tax code, one that would eliminate the special interest goodies that now litter it. He is on record as wanting to do so. Obama just wants to “raise taxes on the rich,” while leaving the deeply corrupt code itself intact, assuring that the rich will not actually have to pay those increased rates. The Times also wants to make the rich “pay their fair share.” Unless, perhaps, their name happens to be Sulzberger.
If you listen to the liberals you would think that Romney is Lucifer and one of the most evil people in the word…
Since we are talking about Taxes – I want to see Mush Mouth Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's taxes… I want to see Nancy Pelosi's Tax returns… What about Harry Reid's?
For the left, it's fine to HAVE gobs of money, like JFK and John Kerry, as long as they didn't make it themselves.
The government should not try to charge more tax than the maximum effective rate as specified by the Laufer curve. Charging more reduced its revenue and is just a punishment pure and simple. Fair share has never been defined and is stupid. It is Rosevelt base and simply antiquated.
Did the NYT complain about Kerry and Gore and their tax!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and wealth when they ran for the presidency? nI don't think so.
Great, Romney didn't "evade" taxes, that is commit the crime of tax fraud, he only "avoided" taxes through the use of highly sophisticated and aggresive strategies that made use of overseas tax havens, "blocker" corporations, etc. What is unquestionable is that he has scrupulously "avoided" candor with respect to those financial engineering manuevers that contributed so greatly to his personal wealth and so undermine the integrity of our tax system, and with respect to what tax loopholes, preferences, and expenditures he would eliminate, emulating Obama's lack of candor in that regard. We should be confident that Romney will do the right thing with respect to tax reform, whatever that may be, when the time comes, because he has been so forthright to date about his own circumstances and we know he would act out of his own self-interest or that of his wealthy peers?
"Since Mitt Romney is a very rich man, perhaps he—like Nixon going to China—is exactly the man to lead the fight on a fundamental reform of the tax code, one that would eliminate the special interest goodies that now litter it. He is on record as wanting to do so." Obama on the other hand just wants to “raise taxes on the rich,” while leaving the deeply corrupt code itself intact, assuring that the rich will not actually have to pay those increased rates." This is the kind of truly stupid partisanship that so undermines the quality of Contention posts.
Why should he be "exactly the man to lead the fight on a fundamental reform of the tax code"? Because he knows so well how to exploit the tax code for personal advantage as it is now written, something that the very best tax lawyers don't know too? He is on record as wanting to bring about fundamental reform of the tax code, but he and his running mate Paul Ryan steadfastly refuse to tell us how they would do it, if they could, specifically what "loopholes" they would close; deductions they would cutback or eliminate altogether; what they would do about "carried interest," "blocker" corporations set up in offshore tax havens, etc.
What we can be confident of is that Romney will do what is best for us collectively, not for himself and his similarly situated friends? (If Romney converts $100M in a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA either to stop RMDs or because it is the smart thing to convert, he will face at least an additional $8.4M in taxes if Obamacare is not repealed and the Bush tax cuts expire. So, potentially a bit of self-interest here.) Meanwhile, it is the objective, non-partisan, entirely fair view of JSG that Obama wants to "leav(e) the deeply corrupt code itself intact." For a number of reason, Israel at the top of the list, I earnestly hope that we are not stuck with Obama for another 4 years, but that doesn't mean I have any enthusiasm for Romney, or that I have any patience with crapola like JSG is serving up here (e.g., Obama wants to "leav(e) the deeply corrupt code itself intact.")
Also, JSG writes, "…the Times fails to mention that the estate tax eliminates the capital gains tax that would otherwise be due on inherited assets. Eliminating the estate tax would reinstate the capital gains liability. So the effect of eliminating the estate tax would be to relieve families of the necessity to sell assets on death, not of their ultimate tax obligations." I'd love to hear him explain that. Currently estates greater than $5.12M face a tax of 35% on the overage, and if the Bush tax cuts lapse, it will go to 55% on amounts over $1M, while capital gains rates currently at 15% will go to 20%. So how will big estates be worse off (and the US Treasury be better off) if we swap an estate tax of as much as 55% for one on capital gains of 15-20%, by eliminating the former altogether and getting rid of stepped-up value on at time of death? If JSG is correct about this, he ought to explain.