REAL STORIES
BY REAL PEOPLE Search
Monday, October 23, 2017

The Tenant Society

by Agit8r (writer), Spokane, WA, September 20, 2012

Mitt Romney's plan would raise effective tax rates on everyone but the wealthy, and would end the middle class as we know it

The basic principal behind the American Dream was "equal opportunity for all and privilege for none." The opportunity for upward mobility, without the boot of feudal lords upon our necks. This could all change next year. In late 2011 Mitt Romney revealed how he would facilitate the massive wealth transfer to our would-be lords:

"Don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom. Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes, and let it turn around and come back up."

Romney's tax plan helps this along, as well as working to keep the middle class from ever existing again. The most essential piece of this is the effective elimination of the mortgage interest deduction, thus setting off the inevitable chain reaction of devaluation; first the most underwater mortgages, then--once that results in further devaluation--those newly underwater, and so on, until even very responsible home-owners are left in ruin. Once the housing market "hits the bottom" the "investors" which he speaks of will swoop down and pick the carcass of the American Dream, paying pennies on the dollar for what real Americans had slaved their adult lives away for. When he says "put renters in them" he means the newly homeless masses that will have to make whatever rent payments the oligopoly will demand.

Now it may seem that the shock-therapy-depressed economy couldn't provide enough revenue to pay for the austere operations of government coupled with the massive military buildup as is promised. But here is the kicker; even though each tax bracket would be reduced by a fifth, Romney economic advisor Martin Feldstein--whose analysis asserted that Romney's tax plan could be mathematically feasible[1]--has proposed a MAXIMUM total of deductions that any worker could claim would be just 2% of adjusted gross income.[2]

The MINIMUM effective rate of each bracket under this plan would be:

6.0% on income from $0 to $8,700, plus
10.0% on income over $8,700 to $35,350, plus
18.0% on income over $35,350 to $85,650, plus
21.6% on income over $85,650 to $178,650, plus
24.4% on income over $178,650 to $388,350, plus
26.0% on income over $388,350*
*minimum presumes that none of that none of the present tax-shelter

As Feldstein explained the 2 percent cap in a 2011 op-ed in the New York Times:

"The tax expenditures that we cap in our analysis include all itemized deductions, the health insurance exclusion and the child tax credit. We do not limit the tax expenditures associated with saving and investment like the individual retirement account deduction, the interest accumulating in I.R.A. accounts, and the reduced rate on capital gains."

to further illustrate the completely regressive nature of the the plan, lets have a look at those brackets with payroll taxes added in:

13.65% on income from $0 to $8,700, plus
17.65% on income over $8,700 to $35,350, plus
25.65% on income over $35,350 to $85,650, plus
29.25% on income over $85,650 to $106,800, plus
21.6% on income over $106,800 to $178,650
24.4% on income over $178,650 to $388,350, plus
26.0% on income over $388,350

meanwhile, the CEO of Bain Capital would pay a lower rate than any of the above... That isn't just wrong, it is unAmerican.

"if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit ...the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

______________________________________________________________________________

[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444327204577617421727000592.html

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/opinion/05feldstein.html

  • 10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,700, plus
  • 15% on taxable income over $8,700 to $35,350, plus
  • 25% on taxable income over $35,350 to $85,650, plus
  • 28% on taxable income over $85,650 to $178,650, plus


About the Writer

Agit8r is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

6 comments on The Tenant Society

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By melanie jean juneau on September 20, 2012 at 10:52 pm

This is the truth, finally. This is what the conservatives do not want to spell out. They would rather shame the victms of big business

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Inmyredhead on September 22, 2012 at 12:17 am

Such a spin doctor you are Agit.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Agit8r on September 22, 2012 at 11:58 am

since he hasn't given specifics, we have to rely on the best evience we have.

When there is secrecy, sensible people will naturally assume the worst.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Inmyredhead on September 22, 2012 at 11:20 pm

Well, first of all it's very disingenuous to subtitle this piece of 'best evidence you have' as though it were stating a factual truth. This is simply a propostion made by Romney's economic advisor.

Secondly, as far as secrecy? Paranoid people naturally assume the worst. Educated people keep an open mind and in the mean time do more research. Or, are you suggesting that it would be totally natural, and sensible to assume that since Obama has sealed his college admissions information, and his grades that he in fact is doing so because he doesn't want us to know that he actually got into that big fancy college by enrolling as a foreign student- you know, given that colleges have quotas to make in regards to diversity. And that his grades were pretty bad. If he even actually went that is.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 2
By Agit8r on September 23, 2012 at 09:34 am

people are convicted on circumstancial evidence all the time. In my mind, the intention to push through a 2% cap or something very similar is beyond a reasonable doubt. One may ask would that be politic? Maybe not, but he seems willing to take the risk.

And here is where the voter suppression experiments can really begin to work their magic. When there are tough proof of residency requirements and a mass diplacement of voters, maybe you don't have to worry so much about electoral backlash...

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Inmyredhead on September 24, 2012 at 11:06 pm

What exactly is 'tough proof of residency requirements'?

Ohhh, you mean a person's ID.

 Report abuse



Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.


Rate This Article


Your vote matters to us



x


x