76afd12b   
   50a6d960   
   XPost: alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.bush, soc.culture.usa   
   XPost: alt.gossip.celebrities   
   From: perryneheum@hotmail.com   
      
   Romney told CBS News’ “60 Minutes” that his own 14 percent effective   
   income tax rate in 2011 was fair because lower taxes on investment   
   are, repeat after me, “the right way to encourage economic growth.”   
      
   ===========================   
   "Romney’s tax plan, by the numbers"   
      
   Op-Ed   
   By Ruth Marcus   
   September 25,  2012   
      
   THERE ARE THREE FALLACIES and two dangers at the heart of Mitt   
   Romney’s tax policy.   
      
   Romney has been appropriately chided for dangling the promise of lower   
   rates — with unpleasant details left intentionally blank. But there   
   are even more fundamental flaws with his approach.   
      
   The first is the argument that cutting personal income tax rates would   
   lead to economic growth robust enough to help pay for a big chunk of   
   the cuts. The second, related, fallacy is the contention that raising   
   rates on top earners would hurt growth. The third is that raising   
   capital-gains rates would be even more harmful.   
      
   There is scant reliable evidence for any of the above, yet Romney and   
   fellow Republicans hitch their entire economic argument to them. And   
   their rabid pursuit of lower taxes leads to two dangers: further   
   ballooning the national debt and further increasing income inequality.   
      
   To be clear: Holding everything else equal (ignoring, for example, the   
   economic drag of bigger deficits), lower tax rates are better than   
   higher ones. A simpler tax code would be far preferable to the current   
   byzantine mess. Lowering rates and broadening the base is a dandy idea   
   — when done in a way that also raises badly needed new revenue.   
      
   Not done the way Romney proposes, with the goal of merely avoiding   
   greater debt. Even that hinges on the faith-based assertion that this   
   revenue neutrality can be achieved through the ensuing miracle of   
   faster economic growth.   
      
   History counsels against counting on tax miracles.   
      
   First, would lower rates, as Romney claims, produce economic growth?   
   “Past changes in tax rates have had no large clear effect on economic   
   growth,” the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS)   
   concluded in a December review.   
      
   Consider: The economy grew at 3.9 percent from 1950 to 1970, when the   
   average top marginal income tax rate was 84.8 percent. From 1987 to   
   2010, when the average rate was less than half that (36.4 percent),   
   economic growth was far less robust, 2.9 percent.   
      
   This comparison might be misleading because multiple factors affect   
   the economy, so the CRS looked at a shorter, more recent time span.   
      
   From 1987 through 1992, the top average marginal income tax rate was   
   33.3 percent. Economic growth averaged 2.3 percent.   
      
   From 1993 through 2002, after taxes increased under President Clinton,   
   the average top marginal rate was 39.5 percent. Economic growth   
   averaged 3.7 percent.   
      
   Finally, from 2003 through 2007, after the Bush tax cuts, the average   
   top marginal rate was 35 percent. Economic growth averaged 2.8   
   percent.   
      
   If you were going to make a causality argument from these figures, it   
   would be that lower taxes correlate with lower growth. Such a leap   
   isn’t justified — but where is the proof supporting Republicans’   
   insistence that lower rates fuel growth?   
      
   Second, and this is at the heart of the current debate over letting   
   the Bush tax cuts expire, would raising rates on upper-income   
   taxpayers threaten growth?   
      
   A new CRS report suggests not — but it underscores the risk of the   
   other danger, increasing income inequality. Lower top rates do not   
   correlate with increased savings, investment or productivity, the CRS   
   found. Top tax rates, it concludes, “appear to have little or no   
   relation to the size of the economic pie.”   
      
   But lower top rates do help the rich serve themselves a heftier slice   
   of that pie. Reducing top rates, the CRS noted, appears “associated   
   with the increasing concentration of income at the top.”   
      
   Which leads to the final question: whether lower capital-gains rates,   
   whose benefits flow overwhelmingly to the wealthiest, are justified.   
      
   Romney told CBS News’ “60 Minutes” that his own 14 percent effective   
   income tax rate in 2011 was fair because lower taxes on investment   
   are, repeat after me, “the right way to encourage economic growth.”   
      
   Evidence, please? Leonard Burman of Syracuse University’s Maxwell   
   School looked at capital-gains rates over six decades and found no   
   correlation with economic growth. Look at his graph and you’ll see:   
   The two lines — capital-gains rates and growth — bear no relation to   
   each other.   
      
   Burman tried adjusting for time lags, of up to five years, and looking   
   at moving averages of tax rates and growth. Still no correlation.   
   “There is no apparent relationship,” Burman told the Senate Finance   
   Committee last week. “Cutting capital gains taxes will not turbocharge   
   the economy, and raising them would not usher in a depression.”   
      
   At a moment that demands seriousness about the debt, the country is   
   trapped in a tax debate premised on unproven assertions and flawed   
   history. It risks producing fiscal chaos and social instability. You’d   
   think a numbers guy would at least look at the numbers before taking   
   this dangerous tax leap.   
      
   [ruthmar...@washpost.com]   
      
   http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-fallacies-at-the-h...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)