Go Home

As the outcry grows over Mitt Romney's shockingly low 15 percent tax rate, his bitter rival Newt Gingrich rushed to his defense. "My goal is not to raise Mitt Romney's taxes," Gingrich declared," It's to let everybody pay Mitt Romney's rate." Of course, as with his marriage vows, Newt isn't telling the truth. As it turns out, Gingrich has proposed a new capital gains tax rate - zero - that would almost eliminate Mitt Romney's already meager payment to Uncle Sam.

In South Carolina yesterday, Gingrich for once passed on an opportunity to take Mitt Romney to task. As ABC reported:

"We can confirm that I paid a 31 percent rate, and although let me be clear, the 21st century Contract With America has an optional 15 percent for every American," Gingrich said at a press availability in South Carolina. "My goal is not to raise Mitt Romney's taxes. It's to let everybody pay Mitt Romney's rate. And so I'm not going to criticize Mitt Romney. I'm going to say, shouldn't we all have the option of a flat tax at the same rate he was paying."

But that's not what Newt has actually proposed. His optional 15 percent flat tax rate is for ordinary income, not capital gains. And it is the capital gains rate which, thanks to the "carried interest" exemption for private equity managers, accounts for the minimal tax bill Mitt Romney pays on the millions he continues to earn each year from his former employer, Bain Capital.

In a nutshell, President Gingrich wants Governor Romney to pay 15 (and not 35) percent on his regular income and nothing on the millions in investment income that makes up most of his cash flow.

Here's how Gingrich's scheme for a budget-busting payout works for denizens of the gilded class like Mitt Romney. Like his former rival turned supporter Rick Perry, taxpayers could choose to pay an optional flat tax rate (15 percent in Newt's case, 20 percent in Perry's proposal). The corporate tax rate would be slashed from 35 percent to 12.5 percent. Like, Perry, Gingrich would eliminate the capital gains tax altogether. (As the Washington Post recently explained the impact of the already historically low 15% capital gains tax rate, "Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent.")

But as Suzy Khimm documented in the Washington Post, Gingrich's plan would produce an ever larger payday for the upper class than Rick Perry, while ensuring the U.S. Treasury hemorrhages even more red ink:

Gingrich preserves deductions for corporations and rich individuals that Perry eliminates: He preserve deductions for charitable giving and mortgage interest to all Americans, whereas Perry only keeps them for families earning less than $500,000. Perry vows to eliminate all corporate tax deductions, while Gingrich would preserve them. As such, corporations and the richest Americans could stand to benefit even more under Gingrich's plan than Perry's.

Under Perry's plan, those with more than a million in income would save $500,000 in taxes by 2015, due to a 60 percent drop in their tax rate, and those benefits would be even bigger under Gingrich. According to the Tax Policy Center, Perry's plan would lower total projected government revenue by 27 percent--a $1 trillion loss in 2015 alone. Gingrich's plan, accordingly, would result in even bigger revenue loss.

Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center concurred with that assessment, concluding, "You would have about three-quarters of the revenue you would have under Perry, so you have a much bigger revenue hole."

In October, Citizens for Tax Justice previewed Romney's admission on Tuesday, estimating that he paid only 14 percent of his total income in taxes. (It's no wonder Mitt opposes the "Buffett Rule.") As Time reported:

Just how much Romney pays in taxes is, for the moment, a private matter. But his income is public knowledge. In August, Romney disclosed that in 2010 he and his wife made between $1.1 million and $2.8 million in royalties, salary, speaking fees and interest, most of which was likely taxed at a marginal rate of 35%, after accounting for deductions. The Romneys made an additional $5.5 million to $37.3 million from dividends and capital gains, which is generally taxed at a much lower rate of 15%.

Not if President Gingrich gets way. Romney's tax bill would plummet, if not to a rate of zero, to the low single digits.

This is not to say Citizen Romney wouldn't benefit from having President Romney in the White House. An analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice found that Romney's taxes would be cut by almost half under his current proposals. And that doesn't include the $84,000,000 windfall Romney's five sons and 17 grandchildren would receive by their patriarch's elimination of the estate tax. (Ending the estate tax is also part of Newt's plans.)

At the end of the day, losing the White House to Newt Gingrich will hurt Mitt Romney's ego. But as the numbers show, nothing could be better for his bottom line.

(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)

Share This Post

Link To This Post


27 Comments
Geronimo.'s picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

Peter G's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Geronimo.'s picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

Peter G's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]

Hasa Diga Eebowai

ixnay's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]

CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"

Peter G's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]

Hasa Diga Eebowai

ixnay's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]

CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"

BigDaddyMalcontent's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]
Peter G's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]

Hasa Diga Eebowai

BigDaddyMalcontent's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]
Peter G's picture

the git that keeps on giving.


Hasa Diga Eebowai

Different Anonymous's picture
.

If everybody has a 0% tax rate, just who is supposed to pay for our wonderful military adventures? (Rhetorical question).

I am sure Newt will eventually think of a grandiose BIG IDEA how to do that. Perhaps fees on old gramps and grannies of questionable immigration status who can prove they have been here long enough to qualify for Newt's Tender Mercy immigration big idea.


"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden

Like Cain, Bachman, Perry, and the rest of the Republican clown car of idiots, Newt Gingrich is in no way a legitimate candidate. He couldn't even get his name on the ballot in Virginia. But being a legitimate contender for the presidency is not his role.

His role is to make the two eventual candidates look good by comparison and providing not only the the illusion of choice, but the illusion of correct choice. "Don't like Obama or Romney? What would you rather have Gingrich? (or Perry? or Bachman?)"

Like his predecessor bad cops, Gincrich consistently searches for idiotic stances that no rational candidate for president would ever take (e.g. end child labor laws, reduce banker taxes even further, outlaw birth control), These are not stances which are calculated to win votes. Quite the opposite: they will cost him more votes than they could ever gain.

Unlike Perry or Bachman, Newt Gincrich is not only quite intelligent, he is the consummate political animal. He knows quite well that such stances are political suicide for any serious contender. But it's not as if that's his objective. A serious contender doesn't take a vacation to Greece in the middle of a campaign resulting in mass resignations of his campaign staff.

But a bogeyman doesn't need a campaign staff or his name on the Virgina ballot. All he needs is a microphone, some ridiculous ideas designed to make the competition look good, and a complete lack of shame.

Newt easily qualifies.


Corruption favors the wealthy.

Bachman and Gingrich of the other side of this evil equation?


"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden

fiver's picture
No.

And that's aside from the fact that there is no "other side" in this election.

In elections past, Dean and Kucinich were hardly given the microphone to voice their disagreements. They were marginalized and ridiculed with irrelevancies like a bad scream or seeing a UFO.

Their actual policy disagreements were never allowed to be the media focus.


Corruption favors the wealthy.

bluefeather's picture

he will be dragged out again and again to dupe the voters until another shill is chosen that has the same limited draw that he has. And in return he gets "face time" to sell his books and live a lavish lifestyle no matter how egregious his views or behavior, as long as he pays homage to the Republican Holy Trinity of God, Gays or Guns.


Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Too complex for the John Kings of the world. They'll have to stick to the sex lives of candiates we have been wallowing in since Gary Hart showed the media how easy that is.


"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden

Jon Perr's picture

I'm glad you found the chart useful. But it actually comes from Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, who used it in his review of Mitt Romney's tax plan.

If you click on the chart above, it will take you to Ezra's original piece on the subject.

SallyAnn's picture

Is that contract with America full of BS? We know your "FAMILY VALUES" is BS. What's the difference, it's still manure no matter how you package it.

Captain Kangaroo's picture

I suppose that 15% capital gains tax is ok in certain situations such as when that money is actually used to create actual jobs. If it is sitting in stocks and bonds just to use as income then it should be taxed as income. If it is paid out as a bonuses to Wall Street then it should be taxed as income. If somebody invests $1,000,000 in a business and that business creates jobs and that business returns a profit then I can understand the logic of taxing it differently but it has to create jobs (maybe up to a certain amount before it is then taxed as straight income).

Amitola's picture

we won't need no stinkin' tax revenue - none, nada, nil - 'cause after they get into office the plan is to shrink the government and then drown it (and all of us, I guess) in a bathtub. N'est pas!??


"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy

BigDaddyMalcontent's picture

button.

ricky's picture

may have once been a Paulist monk.


"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden

BigDaddyMalcontent's picture

.

Tax the Rich's picture

Comment deleted for violating terms of agreement.

There, save you some time. ;-)


If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.

Moderator's picture

The first post was off topic, and everything that followed was also off topic and/or petty flaming. Jon put effort into the post, the comments, especially the first, should not just go veering off into the stratosphere.

Comments are closed on this entry