Free Site Registration


Obama Calls Romney Tax Policies ‘Robin Hood in Reverse’

Print
Email
Reprints
Stamford, Conn. (August 7, 2012)

By Michael Cohn

President Barack Obama criticized Republican rival Mitt Romney’s tax reform plans during a campaign appearance, referring to them as “Robin Hood in reverse” and “Romney Hood.”

Barack Obama

“In fact, the entire centerpiece of Mitt Romney’s economic plan is a new $5 trillion tax cut,” Obama said at a campaign appearance at the Stamford Marriott Hotel in Stamford, Conn., on Monday night. “And we’ve known for a while that a lot of this tax cut would go to the wealthiest 1 percent of all households. But just last week, an independent, nonpartisan organization crunched the numbers. They went through what would it mean to add a $5 trillion tax cut. Just to give you a sense of perspective here, our entire defense budget is over $500 billion a year, but it’s less than $600 billion. So you’re talking about each year, a tax cut that’s equivalent of our defense budget for the next 10 years.”

Obama was referring to a study by the Urban Institute’s and Brookings Institution’s Tax Policy Center analyzing Romney’s tax policy.

“And what this policy center did was—it just ran the numbers—if you wanted to actually pay for that, what would that mean,” Obama added. “And they determined that Governor Romney’s plan would effectively raise taxes on middle-class families with children by an average of $2,000—to pay for this tax cut. Not to reduce the deficit. Not to invest in things that grow our economy, like education or roads or basic research. He’d ask the middle class to pay more in taxes so that he could give another $250,000 tax cut to people making more than $3 million a year. It’s like Robin Hood in reverse. It’s Romney Hood.”

Republicans have criticized the Tax Policy Center study, noting that it was co-authored by a former Obama staffer, Adam Looney, who was senior economist for public finance and tax policy with the President's Council of Economic Advisers and was an economist at the Federal Reserve Board. However, defenders of the study have pointed out that another co-author of the study, William Gale, was a senior staff economist on the President’s Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush. A third co-author, Samuel Brown, used to work for the Federal Reserve Board.

“If this sounds like an idea that’s difficult to explain or sell to the American people, you’d be right,” said Obama of Romney’s tax policies. “So there were all kinds of different gymnastics being performed by the Romney campaign last week. They have tried to sell us this trickle-down, tax cut fairy dust before. And guess what—it does not work. It didn’t work then; it won’t work now. It’s not a plan to create jobs. It’s not a plan to reduce our deficit. And it is not a plan to move our economy forward. We do not need—I do not need a tax cut. We need tax cuts for working Americans. We need tax cuts for families who are trying to raise kids, and keep them healthy, and send them to college, and keep a roof over their heads. So that’s the choice in this election. That’s what this is about. That’s why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States. “

The Romney campaign disputed Obama’s characterization of his tax plan. “There’s only one candidate in this race who’s going to raise taxes on the American people, and that’s Barack Obama,” said Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams in a statement to Bloomberg News. “While he’s used taxpayer dollars to grow government and reward his donors, middle-class Americans have seen fewer jobs, lower incomes and less hope for the future.”

Obama said he has a different plan for America. “Four years ago, I promised to cut middle-class taxes. That’s exactly what I’ve done, by a total of about $3,600 for the typical family,” he said. “So I want to keep taxes exactly where they are for the first $250,000 of everybody’s income. If your family makes under $250,000—like 98 percent of Americans do—you will not see your income taxes increase by a single dime next year. And if you’re fortunate enough—as many of you are, as I am—to be in the other 2 percent, you still keep the tax cut on the first $250,000 of your income. All we’re asking is that, after that, you contribute a little bit more so we can pay down our deficit and invest in things like education that will help us grow.”

1 Comment

President "Buffet Rule" Obama a/ka Robin Hood has dubbed his nemesis, Mr. Romney as "Romney Hood". The sarcasm is intended to explain the findings of the Urban Institute's and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center. The new report concludes that Romney's tax reform outline for a 20% across the board cut in taxes will help high earners more than low earners (even with some conservative guessing about the 56% to 65% of tax expenditures that would have to be eliminated). With Mr. Geitner leaving and none of Obama.s original economic advisors left it is possible that the president needed the Tax Policy Center to explain the obvious.

I am beginning to think that Mr. Obama enjoys his Robin Hood image of someone working outside the system like a community organizer. He invited help from Volker, Simpson, Bowles, Domenici and Rivlin but precluded them from even considering obvious tax reform tools such as a value added tax (VAT) or net wealth tax. He ignored the limited recommendations to eliminate most tax exemptions because he has personally supported most, from cash-for-clunkers to the Romney endorsed exemption for Olympic winners.

The great Harvard Psychologist, B. F. Skinner taught us that incentives ("contingencies of reinforcement") may take the form of positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement or punishment. In taxes we often equate all tax expenditures (loopholes, deductions, credits, exemptions, special rates, etc.) with positive reinforcement because they reduce the tax burden. The Supreme Court has taught us that the Affordable Care Act health insurance penalty is really a tax and perhaps better viewed as negative reinforcement. Psychologically, one can escape or minimize the penalty by obtaining health insurance.

A net wealth tax also serves as a negative reinforcer (as in "use it or lose it") in so far as it encourages productive investment of wealth (as opposed to hording precious metals and gems, opening a foreign bank account, buying a second yacht, etc.). A tax on net wealth is not likely to encourage people to give their wealth away by killing the incentive to own it.

The proper understanding of economic incentives enables the design of a simple and fair tax reform that will maximize job creation and business investment without government spending. It does so by correcting the three major problems in today's economy: 4. The 15% payroll taxes destroy job creation by reducing consumer spending (employee share) and increasing the cost of labor (employer share). 5. Social Security and Medicare consume too much of the income tax base. 6. Half the country now lives on only 1.1% of the wealth (down from 3.6% in 1995) and requires increasing government support (unemployment, SSDI, food stamps, welfare, housing assistance, etc.).

The cure is to eliminate all business tax expenditures in exchange for an 8% corporate income tax rate and 4% VAT. The U.S. remains the only developed country without a VAT and that is the only reason why we have the highest corporate tax rate.

Individual tax expenditures can also be exchanged for an 8% individual income tax rate if we also replace the job killing payroll taxes with a 2% net wealth tax (excluding $15,000 cash and retirement funds). Imagine: - Millions of new jobs with no government spending - Adequate funding for Social Security and Medicare - Rich and poor paying the same low fair tax rates - At least $500 billion more revenue each year

Mayor Ed Koch used to say, "How am I doing?" Let us know at www.TaxNetWealth.com if you can identify a logical, legal or economic reason why this 2-4-8 Tax Blend would not produce a sustainable economic recovery as promised.

Eugene Patrick Devany, JD, MPA

Posted by: Eugene Patrick Devany | August 7, 2012 1:37 PM

Report this Comment

Add Your Comments...

Already Registered?

If you have already registered to Accounting Today, please use the form below to login. When completed you will immeditely be directed to post a comment.

 

Follow Accounting Today
Advertisement
Advertisement

Women in Accounting: Breaking the Mold

May 21, 2013

A continued conversation with Marcum’s Nanette Lee Miller and Janis Cowhey McDonagh about the obstacles women in the accounting profession face when trying to make their way into leadership positions.

IMA’s Jeff Thomson on the Role and Skills of Management Accountants

May 8, 2013

Institute of Management Accountants president and CEO Jeffrey Thomson discusses why accounting students should consider management accounting as a career, and the IMA's partnership with John Wiley & Sons.

Advertisement

SLIDE SHOW

Top 10 Tech Initiatives -- 2013

May 5, 2013

The AICPA's annual list of IT priorities for accounting firms.

Tax Stats: May 2013

April 30, 2013

Our monthly collection of statistics from the world of tax.

10 Biggest Estate Planning Mistakes

April 29, 2013

Help your clients avoid these common pitfalls.

Common E-mail Security Mistakes

April 23, 2013

These five bad habits can make your confidential information -- and that of your clients -- easy to steal.

The Art of the Tax Cartoon

April 9, 2013

A selection of tax cartoons from Philly tax firm Drucker & Scaccetti's 'Finding Humor in Taxes' exhibit.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement