THE STUMP JANUARY 25, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
President Obama's declaration in the State of the Union speech that people making more than a million bucks should be paying more than their secretaries, and at least 30 percent of their income, was seen as an implicit rebuke of Mitt Romney. But this was apparently a grave mistake on the president's part, because Romney already is paying 30 percent.
What, you didn't know that? Well, it says it right here at the end of the Washington Post's article on Romney's newly released tax returns:
Even if tax law is not changed, Heritage Foundation economist J.D. Foster argued that Romney already contributes at least 30 percent of his income to society.
“Between taxes and charitable contributions, it’s already 30 percent,” Foster said. “That’s a pretty hefty portion of his resources being applied to social purposes.”
Yes, apparently the right is so scrambled over how to defend Romney's sub-14 percent federal income tax rate that it is now arguing that his charitable contributions -- the vast majority of which went to the Mormon church, which got $4 million from Romney over the past two years -- should count as part of his contribution to the common good. So: this April, no need to pay the IRS the full tab. Just let them know about your donations to worthy causes like, say, your needy prep school or Ivy League alma mater or the Heritage Foundation or, as in the case of Romney, a church that spends lots of money on really tall spires and anti-gay marriage referenda, and demonstrates its contribution to society by prohibititing non-members from entering its temples.
Next thing you know they'll be counting toward Romney's giving tab the (tax-free) $100 million he passed on to his five sons. After all, who's to argue there's not a "social purpose" in keeping those handsome fellas in such fine fettle?
follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
9 comments
By this twisted brain-dead thinking my tax rate is 45%. When Romney is at that rate give me a call. I'm not including the time I spend working for charitable organizations (not including my church) so the rate is even higher. The Heritage Foundation is called a "think" tank? In-the-tank or perhaps thoughtless tank would be the proper description. As Bugs Bunny would say "what a maroon".
- tmmats
January 25, 2012 at 11:55am
Reminds me a bit of the Seinfeld episode when George told all his coworkers that instead of holiday gifts, he was making a donation in each of their names to the "Human Fund".
- Tristan
January 25, 2012 at 12:39pm
Excellent post. Little wonder that this guy can't even maintain a lead over Mr. Speaker (better know as Mr. Unelectable).
- mcmahon.an
January 25, 2012 at 2:32pm
We should start calling them "rationalization tanks". That's what they really do.
- JEFF FREY
January 25, 2012 at 4:27pm
That argument only makes sense if you are a Mormon Church, because it would only make sense to someone with a brain of brick and cement.
- Nusholtz
January 25, 2012 at 4:57pm
I'm no fan of Romney or of any other Republican, but this isn't fair. Are you arguing for elimination of the charitable contributions deduction? Isn't it one of the pillars of our civil society? Would you feel much better about Romney's effective average tax rate if the beneficiary of his largess were the Sierra Club rather than the Church of LDS?
- gurwia
January 25, 2012 at 5:03pm
Actually, gurwia, I am. I've long been in favor of Obama's proposal to reduce the tax break that the wealthy get for charitable deductions so that is closer to what everyone else gets. If your tax rate is 35 percent you get a much bigger charitable deduction than if your tax rate is, say, 20. Why should a millionaire get a much bigger break for his donation than a middle-class person making the same sized gift? Obama wasn't even proposing to level the break entirely, only to shrink the gap, but he was bitterly opposed by all the charities, colleges, etc that rely on big gifts from rich folks. That whole sector swung into gear lobbying against it and has quashed it 3 yrs in a row.
- Alec MacGillis
January 25, 2012 at 5:30pm
I have to disagree with Mr. MacGillis. I don't think what he says he was saying was what he was saying. Just kidding. I was imitating some of the people who just seem to want to be contrary all the time.
- Nusholtz
January 25, 2012 at 6:16pm
Mr. MacGillis, You're right, deductions aren't fair, even though the benefit to high-bracket taxpayers is already diminished and capped. But the Presdient also wants to slow the rate of college tuition cost increases. Reducing the incentive for giving sure would make that goal a lot harder to achieve. When the best is the enemy of the good, I root for the latter. Gurwia
- gurwia
January 26, 2012 at 8:52am