Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan: Inequality At Its Finest

Mitt Romney hasn’t been too shy about making blatantly false accusations about President Obama’s economic policies throughout the duration of his primary campaign. His wild assertions reached a crescendo on Tuesday when he told supporters at a campaign stop in Iowa:

“I think president Obama wants to make us a European style welfare state, where instead of being a merit society, we’re an entitlement society, where government’s role is to take from some and give to others.”

Essentially, Romney is trying to make the case to Republican voters that Obama’s radical ideology enables him to create economic policies that help one group of Americans at the expense of another. Although he might not explicitly be saying it, he’s claiming that the idea of having an economic policy that tilts the odds in one groups favor is reprehensibly wrong. “Merit” he say’s is what differentiates him against Obama’s un-American idea of “entitlement.”

So it should come as a major surprise at how one-sided and preferential Romney’s own economic plan is when it comes to helping the rich at the expense of everybody else. The Tax Policy Center is out with a new report that  analyzes Mitt Romney’s economic plan that he released last fall. Greg Sargent of the Washington Post breaks down the results:

Individuals in the top 0.1 percent, or those making over $2.8 million, would get an income tax cut of nearly half a million dollars.

Individuals in the top one percent, or those making over $629,000, would get a cut of over $80,000.

Meanwhile, people in the other percentiles would see a tax reduction, but a far smaller one. Those in the 95-99 percentiles would see a tax cut of around $7,500. Those in the 90-95 percentiles would see a tax cut of around $2,500. And those in the 80-90 percentiles would see a cut of around $1,100.

Broken down by quintile, those in the fourth highest would see a tax cut of roughly $6,900; those in the third highest would see a cut of around $500; and those in the bottom two would see a slight increase.

Let me reiterate that: under Romney’s economic vision for the nation, anybody who makes over $2.8 million per year, the top 0.1 percent, will get half a million dollars in tax cuts while everybody else pretty much get’s treated like suckers by a government that exclusively favors the ultra-ultra-ultra-ultra rich. I decided to chart these numbers for kicks:

Mitt Romney Average Tax Cut By Income Percentage Brookings Tax Policy Center

Chart Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Microsimulation Model (version 0411-2).

It goes without saying that Romney’s economic plan is insanely favorable to people in Mitt Romney’s income bracket. But the next time that he wants to claim that Barack Obama wants to create an “entitlement society,” he only needs to look at this chart to remind himself that he wants to too.

Comments

  1. Jay says:

    Klein on Romney’s plan – http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/romneys-tax-plan-saves-top-1-percent-82000/2011/08/25/gIQApn1EdP_blog.html

    Generally, I think any analysis of a tax plan that utilizes comparisons between tax bracket rates in dollar figures rather than percentages is probably intentionally dishonest. But, in this case, the reality requires no need to mislead. Romney’s plan is regressive, with higher percentage level cuts for the wealthier and tax raises for the poorest. A ridiculous proposition.

  2. JimC146 says:

    The only fair tax system is one that is the same for everyone regardless. Anything else is just B.S., either implement a flat tax or the Fair Tax plan, otherwise this is just more of the Government picking winners and losers trying to influence the market, and we all know how well that has worked.

  3. JimC146 says:

    I agree with Jay that using dollar amounts to express tax cuts is dishonest but I will say even in this case it is dishonest. Show the percentage of reduction not the dollar amount. Dollar amount appeals to those who think the rich have more to give and thus it is only “fair” that they do so. Unequal fairness is only logical if you’re twisted in the head.

    If one is going to express how much a tax cut certain income levels will get in $$$ then the only “fair” thing is to also express how much they still will be paying in $$$. Why don’t these reports ever do that way? I wonder….

  4. nathan says:

    but I will say even in this case it is dishonest.

    Umm, it’s not dishonest at all. The fact is that Mitt Romney is trying to win voter support by arguing that his tax cuts will help out all Americans, when in fact, the savings the bottom 95% will really get are negligible in relation to those of the top 1% and the top 0.1%. It might be more dramatic of a depiction than the rate of tax cuts for each bracket would be, but the point is to show who benefits the most under Romney’s plan.

  5. JimC146 says:

    Saying someone will get $500K tax cut and then saying someone making less will get $7,500, $2,500, and even low as $1,100 seems dramatic and just downright unfair!!! However, what they’re not telling you is how much the guy getting a $500K tax cut is paying over the person getting the lower tax cut amounts. What they should be showing is percentages. If the .1% gets a 25% reduction but the lower 99.9% only gets a 10% reduction then that’s unfair in the amount of the reduction yet what’s ultimately “fair” is the final percentages. If the final percentages are not equal, that the percent any person pays is different, then it is unfair by definition and only illogical subjectivity can coerce it into being “fair”.

    The fact is the wealthy get taxed more simply because they “can afford it” not because it is fair but because they have it to take. That’s not equality, that’s not fairness. So don’t pretend any current tax plan Obama, Romney, etc is fair unless all are treated equally.

    Again, taking the same percentage from everyone, fair, taking a higher percentage from someone not fair no matter how you try to spin it.

  6. nathan says:

    Look, although the chart does not account for tax rate, it accurately represents what it purports to. What you are getting hung up on is how crazy/insane the income disparity is that divides the top 1% from everybody else.

    I could have just charted the tax rate, but that would have left out this important piece of context (income disparity) which is as vital of information to know when looking at who really benefits from Romney’s plan.

  7. JimC146 says:

    Define “income disparity”? Are you saying some people make too much money?

  8. nathan says:

    Define “income disparity”? Are you saying some people make too much money?

    You tell me, did I say that?

  9. JimC146 says:

    No you haven’t to my knowledge said “some people make too much money”, hence the reason why I asked you but that’s ok, I’ll take a step back here.

    You obviously are stressing the “income disparity” giving it some sort of importance. What is significant about the “income disparity” in your view? Not in the context of Romney’s B.S. but in general, what is your view of the disparity.

  10. Joesph R. Pulic says:

    Just think if Ron Paul was elected and the tax rate worked it’s way to 0%. I think that would solve a lot of tax issues in itself. Maybe even the arguments over taxes themselves.