This weekend Mitt Romney has made a point of touring around some conservative states to introduce [and "show off"] his new vice presidential running mate Paul Ryan, chair of the House Budget Committee, in an attempt to redefine his campaign as one that can effectively challenge Obama on his “economic failures.” For those of you who DON’T follow politics very closely, Paul Ryan is a much less notable name to you than Rubio or Condi Rice, but the truth is he is VERY well known – for advocating economic policies that would HELP the rich, and hurt the rest of us.
Paul Ryan advocates Supply-side economics [basically Reaganomics] which essentially states that the best way to grow the economy is to lower income and capital gains tax rates for people who supply goods and services, as well as giving them greater flexibility so they are unrestricted in lowering their bottom line which is suppose to result in the savings being passed on to the consumer. The ideology that this is a smart and fool-proof way to FIX a crumbling economy is absolute bullsh*t.
Supply siders believe that lower taxes can actually increase government revenues in the long run. This is VERY interesting because George Dubya Bush tried this with his tax cuts during his first time as president and guess what happened? Revenues DROPPED throughout his entire first term. In stark contrast, when Bill Clinton slightly raised marginal tax rates, the economy boomed and the budget showed a surplus. But regardless of these facts, Mitt Romney LOVES Paul Ryan – and he SHOULD, because under Paul Ryan’s tax plan Mitt’s tax rate would be 0.82%.
Think about that for a second: 0.82% would be his TAX RATE. To get an idea of how RIDICULOUS that is, go pull out a pay stub and check the percentage of your check that is deducted from the gross amount – chances are it’s A LOT higher than 0.82%. Think I’m lying, check this out from TheAtlantic [here]:
In 2010 – the only year we have seen a full return from him – Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent he actually did. How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney’s income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends.
Romney did earn $593,996 in author and speaking fees in 2010 that would still be taxed under the Ryan plan. Just not much. Ryan would cut the top marginal tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax — saving Romney another $292,389 or so on his 2010 tax bill. Now, Romney would still owe self-employment taxes on his author and speaking fees, but that only amounts to $29,151. Add it all up, and Romney would have paid $177,650 out of a taxable income of $21,661,344, for a cool effective rate of 0.82 percent.
And THIS is what’s suppose to be better than Obama? THIS current-failure of an economic system is what is suppose to DRIVE us OUT of recession when it’s one of the primary things that drove us INTO it? If you wanna believe Obama has not brought about the change he declared he would, I can listen to your argument, but I would still prefer to believe in the audacity of hope than to repeat the anti-intellectual errors of the past.
This Is Your Conscience