The Charlotte Observer's Class Warfare Attack on Mitt Romney's Finances

The Charlotte Observer should include “your daily dose of class warfare” in its masthead, because their editors are the quientessential purveyors of envy and greed. Just recently, they published an Op-Ed about Mitt Romney’s finances. Sure, they threw a bone to those of us who believe that success should be applauded, instead of despised; but their overall meme is the more “fortunate” aren’t paying their fair share to that black hole called the federal government.

Here is their “butt monkey”:

Mitt Romney is a rich man. He has made millions from investments and business ventures, most notably the private equity firm he co-founded, Bain Capital. He has made so much, in fact, that in South Carolina this week, he described the $374,327 he was paid in speaking fees last year as "not very much."

Good for him. Romney shouldn't feel shame - nor should voters reflexively be wary - at the heft of his financial portfolio. But on Tuesday, the Republican candidate for president also revealed that his effective tax rate is well below what many Americans pay - "probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything," he said. It's an admission that'll intensify calls for Romney to release his income tax returns, but we don't need his paperwork to understand how some of the wealthiest Americans have found even more riches thanks to changes in federal tax policy.

The editors at the Disturber obviously failed to make the distinction of taxes on salaries and wages, and that of capital gains. It’s safe to assume that Romney paid the same amount of taxation – if not more – on his initial pay; now, the majority of his income comes from his savings and investments. The 15% is in truth a double taxation. The Disturber made a feeble attempt at trying to explain this:

Romney acknowledged this week that most of his income comes from investments, which are taxed at a rate significantly less than the top rate of 35 percent for individual wages. That's a product of decades of capital gains tax cuts, beginning with President Bill Clinton, who lowered that tax rate from 28 to 20 percent, followed by George W. Bush lowering it to 15 percent.

Many economists and most Republicans argue that capital gains tax cuts help rev the economy by putting more income in the pockets of people who make investments and create jobs. That's logical but disputed. Last year, a report from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service said that reducing capital gains tax rates does little to stimulate economic growth - and ultimately is a drag on federal revenues.

Of course the editors at the Disturber didn’t source this report. So, we can only speculate if they’re telling the truth. Experience has shown me that they can’t be trusted.

The CATO Institute has made an argument that capital gains should be abolished. Here are the top six reasons:

1) Less investment
2) Less risk taking
3) Less competitiveness
4) Less privacy
5) Less employment
6) Less fairness

And here is the video for those reasons:





Source: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/01/19/2937855/an-unfair-loophole-for-americas.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/