Is New York Times columnist Timothy Egan the only one who noticed THIS?
New York Times columnist Timothy Egan writes today:
The Mitt Romney of the second debate, to use Mike Huckabee’s memorable phrase, “looks like the guy who fires you.” He exposed, once again, his biggest fault: that he has no idea what it’s like to be middle-class and struggling in 2012 America.
To take just a couple of examples, here was Romney explaining the benefits of his tax program, the breaks that you’ll get on your stock dividends and mutual funds. As he outlined it with all the mercenary gusto of the visiting suit with a PowerPoint, Romney said, “Every middle-income taxpayer will no longer pay any tax on interest, dividends or capital gains.” And, a bit later, “If you’re getting a statement from a mutual fund or any other kind of investment you have, you don’t have to worry about filing taxes on that.”
No kidding. In Romney’s world, and throughout his own tax return, the money earned from money — as opposed to money earned from working — is the chief source of wealth. And it’s already taxed at a lower rate than middle-income earnings. Getting rid of those taxes altogether does nothing for the warehouse manager, schoolteacher or insurance sales person taking home a salary and being taxed at a full rate for making a living. But it’s great for someone living off mutual fund dividends.
Why hasn’t the media—and the Obama campaign!—been talking about that capital-gains/dividends/interest policy statement of Romney’s? Isn’t that a very big deal?
Is Egan the only one who noticed this? Anyone who matters, I mean? I was stunned when Romney said that on Tuesday, and assumed that that would play as big news. When it didn’t, I forgot about it.
Egan reminded me. And maybe he reminded the Obama campaign, too.
Shouldn’t Obama point this out when he campaigns in, say, Ohio and Wisconsin?
I noticed that comment and had the very same thought. If people are in survival mode, then they are NOT worrying about paying taxes on interest, dividends or capital gains. They are worried about keeping food on the table, the power on, etc etc.
I think the obama campaign made the strategic call to ignore this comment.
Lots of people, though not rich, are still able to save money, and they would perceive as a threat any proposition to tax their life’s savings.
Still, what’s troubling me is that miitt seems to think people have investment accounts besides their 401k.
You’re probably right, Lionel, and I think it’s a mistake. If Romney cuts out all income tax revenue for investments by the middle class, and his tax plan is, as he claims, revenue-neutral, that would require a big tax increase on income from salary or wages, by removing all tax deductions, and then some.
I think there probably are a lot more votes to be picked up than lost, by pointing this out.
just FYI, 2 in 5 of us are living paycheck to paycheck (assume that means those of us who have paychecks), & half havent saved enough to cover 3 months expenses…
Yeah, and some of them make up Romney’s base, RJS. And some others aren’t quite sure how they’ll vote. Which is why I think it’s a mistake for Obama to not make this Romney proposal an issue.