When my generation was young and more radical, a common retort by the powers-that-be (or should that be, “powers-that-were”?) was, “If you don’t like it here, move to Russia.”
Now, it would appear, Russia might be the preferred locale for those “job creators” who don’t want their high incomes taxed too highly. According to KPMG, cited in Wednesday’s NY Times, at 13% Russia has the lowest top individual income tax rate among nine industrialized countries. Here’s how the top rates stack up: Sweden, 57%; Japan, 50%; Britain, 45%; Germany, 45%; Italy, 43%; France, 41%, soon to be 44% with the possibility of it going as high as 75% if new president François Hollande has his way; United States, 35%; Canada, 29%; Russia, 13%.
The Times article painted a dire portrait of Frenchies scurrying to relocate to more tax-friendly countries, such as Belgium, as Hollande’s scheme to get them to pay more gathers momentum (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/business/global/frances-les-riches-vow-to-leave-if-75-tax-rate-is-passed.html?pagewanted=all).
All of which begs the question, if the lower Bush tax rates on high incomes are allowed to expire at the end of the year, would our wealthy elite abandon the good ole’ USA to live, say, in Moscow or Vladivostok, in case they want a view of Sarah Palin’s home? Maybe not, given recent reports about Russian capitalists choosing to leave (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/04/world/europe/ex-kgb-banker-and-putin-critic-plans-to-sell-assets.html). They might find criticizing their new country’s leader, as they have been wont to do toward Barack Obama, slightly more problematic on many a foreign soil.
Of course, money, keeping your money, does talk. Here’s how two French business people explained the tax issue to The Times:
“‘People have an acceptable amount of taxes they are willing to pay,’ said Mr. (Steve) Horton, the (Parisian) accountant, ‘and if it goes above that, they will move somewhere that’s more reasonable.’”
“‘The thing French politicians don’t seem to understand or care about is that when you tax away two-thirds of someone’s earnings to appeal to voters, productive people who can enrich businesses and the economy won’t come — or they will just leave,’ said Diane Segalen, a corporate headhunter.”
Maybe. After all, during the Eisenhower years when our economy blossomed, the highest personal tax rate was 91%. I don’t seem to recall many corporate titans abandoning America back then. Nor did they flee America during the Clinton years when the top tax rate was 39%.
Political Analogies: I never liked SAT tests or other exams that asked you to figure out what two sets of data had in common. But I am intrigued by this grouping: Birth Certificate is to Obama as Tax Return is to Romney.
Republicans are finding the shoe on their foot is no less tight than it was on Obama’s during the inane birther controversy that should have been resolved when Hawaii released copies of the president’s birth certificate. Obama is legally qualified to be our chief executive. Mitt Romney can stonewall all he wants about his tax returns for the last decade, but sooner or later he will have to give in and do what Obama did with his birth certificate—make it available to the public.
For those defending Romney’s right to privacy, why is it that cabinet secretaries and other officials confirmed by the Senate must divulge more tax information than he is willing to? Romney is running for our country’s highest office. If he has nothing to hide, let’s get on with it and show the goods. If he does have something to hide, he should be reminded of the first rule of any political transgression: it’s not the foul that gets you in trouble, it’s the cover-up.
One interesting footnote to this dust-up between Romney and Sen. Harry Reid (who claims Romney paid no taxes for 10 years) is that both of them are Mormons. I wonder what the elders of the church think about all this brotherly “love”?
