Lately there have been many calls for Presidential-candidate Mitt Romney to release his taxes. Many of you know that I have problems with various conservative proposals for what I consider to be sound Scriptural and Holy Tradition reasons. Nevertheless, I wish to defend Mitt Romney on this issue. I am defending him for two reasons. One reason is that I do not think that being a presidential candidate means that you lose all rights to privacy. But, more important, in fact much more important than that, is the fact that Presidential-candidate Mitt Romney does not keep the money that he saves by using all available tax laws. What do I mean?
During the last few years Presidential-candidate Mitt Romney has paid between 13% and 16% of his income in taxes. Had that been all that happened, I might just have joined in the chorus of people who jumped on him. I still have a problem with those who are in the upper 1% and have consistently campaigned for the lowering of their taxes and have used offshore accounts and foreign entities to minimize their taxes. That is, their attitude is not simply that of most Americans, which is how can I lower their taxes, but an attitude of entitlement that rivals the attitude of entitlement that is supposedly found among some welfare recipients. Whether it is by the very rich or by those on welfare, that attitude of entitlement is simply inappropriate and sinful.
But, that is not the case for Mitt Romney. Did he take every possible legal deduction in order to lower his taxes, even if those deductions lowered his taxes below that of the typical middle-class person? Yes, he did. BUT, and this is most important, he did not keep his money. Let me repeat that, HE DID NOT KEEP HIS MONEY. Rather, he gave over 10% of his income to charity. In fact, he has given more money to non-profit charitable organizations than I am likely to make in my lifetime. Let me credit CNN for bringing this up more than once because it is a very important point.
Much of the criticism of Presidential-candidate Romney has to do with the tax rate he pays. I agree that the tax rate for the very rich is inappropriately low compared to the tax rate for the average middle-class American. Sadly, the very rich have used the power that comes from their riches to put loophole after loophole into the tax law. This should not be surprising since from the times of the Old Testament the prophets have spoken out against the chicaneries of the rich and Saint James in the New Testament wrote about the same subject. But, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has chosen to give the Biblically supported call for a 10% tithe and has gone beyond that in his giving. Thus, he has proven that his use of each and every possible income tax exemption has not been out of a sense of greed. Rather, he has shown that he is obedient to Scripture in his giving.
So, let me defend Mitt Romney. He has violated no law, though I will argue that the laws need to be amended. BUT, much more importantly, he has gone far beyond the law in his charitable giving. In fact, I would challenge each and every one of us to adhere to the same standard as Presidential candidate Mitt Romney with regard to our giving to non-profits.
It’s wonderful that Mitt Romney has given to charity. For what it’s worth, the vast majority of the funds went to the LDS Church. The ethics or lack thereof of aggressive tax avoidance might make for some interesting study.
One thing I’m surprised about is how the right-wing has not argued that taxing investment income as regular wage income would in effect tax the same money twice. Of all the arguments that can be used, this one seems to make the most sense.
There is no law that mandates charitable giving, Ernesto, unless you’re talking Biblical law. And where in the world did you make the leap that it’s OK what he’s done because the money he gained from his actions was given to charity. He gained a big-time tax advantage in giving 10% of his income, but nowhere have I read or heard that the money he saved in taxes was what he gave to charity. Something is missing in your argument.
What was missing was some of the research that CNN did into the issue. They are the ones who state that what he gave was commendably large in terms of percentage and took the total money that came out of his income beyond the percentage that most people pay in taxes. You would need to look at CNN for the research. I made it clear that I do not agree with the loopholes in the laws, but I also recognized his commendable level of voluntary giving, which made it clear that he, personally, is not a greedy person. I think his economics are wrong and that his ideas on social justice are wrong. But, in the area of charitable giving, he sets a very commendable example.