Replies

ON TAX CUTS:

Notable here was that the questioner pointed out the good in the Romney tax plan (20% across the board cuts for all earners); this something Romney has so far been reluctant to do given his odd and frustrating desire to not appear to support a reduction in the price of work for the top 1% in this country whose economic achievements improve all of our lives on a daily basis.

Instead, Romney went out of his way yet again to oddly brag that the top 5% would still account for 60% of federal revenues (and you thought Obama was a socialist), while all the benefits would come to middle earners whose tax savings by virtue of them being middle earners can’t move the investment dial that leads to job creation.

After that, Romney’s implicit message to middle income types with designs on making it into the 1% is essentially “If you have the temerity to achieve so much that you enter the 1%, your penalty will be higher taxes.” Romney’s the growth candidate. No seriously, he is.

Obama was naturally no better. He, much like his taxation doppelganger in Romney promised middle class tax relief, though in his case he proposed doing the impossible whereby he would try to fleece top earners even more than at present in order to close the deficit. Lots of luck with that. He then added that “Governor Romney thinks it’s fair and that it grows the economy when people making $20 million a year pay a lower tax rate than those making $50,000. That does not grow the economy.”

Actually, Mr. President, it does grow the economy when you lower the tax burden on the vital few whose exploits elevate our economic existence, not to mention that any income not taxed away by the feds morphs into investment, investment authors all company formation, and through company formation there’s job creation. Economic growth is easy, though you wouldn’t know it from listening to either of the candidates.