Gingrich Vs. Romney (Taxes): Point to Newt

Since the current front runners of the race are Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, I suppose I ought to do something comparing the two of them. Really, the desire those two inspire in me is complete apathy, but I feel I owe it to Fluffy to inform him on the choices that are before him. Of course, with how intensely the primaries have fluctuated, it's entirely possible we'll be seeing a "Obama/Fluffy the Imaginary Monkey 2012" news coverage in the near future.

Fluffy for President

So, on that note, let's go into issue #1 of Mitt vs. Newt. Taxes.

First, we'll look at Romney. He has some good points:

• Lowers corporate tax rate to 25% (Believe it or not, that is lowering it)
• Transitions from worldwide to territorial taxation. Easier tax code to comply with makes America a more attractive place to do business.
  
• Eliminates the estate tax. Double taxation is a bad thing. Why should someone be penalized for dying, for Christ's sake?

Of course, he also has some bad points, most glaringly that it keeps the same basic, convoluted tax structure we have now; a punitive tax code that taxes the rich at a higher rate than the poor.

On the other hand, we have Newt's plan. This plan was recently endorsed by Arthur Laffer in the WSJ. Laffer was an economist who was a member of Reagan's advisory board.

• Lowers corporate taxes to 12.5%. That would drop us instantly from one of the highest taxes in the world to one of the lowest. Combine that with everything else that makes America awesome, and you've got a recipe for investment flow back into the States.
• Creates an optional personal flat tax of 15%. This is cool, except for the optional part. But hey, gotta start somewhere. It means that everyone pays 15% on what they make, regardless of how much they made in wages. That is the very definition of fair.
• Unless of course they made their money investing. This is my favorite part. You wanna hear the tax rate on Capital gains? Get ready: 0.00%. Rounding up, of course. That's right, capital gains is not taxable income.

Now, before you completely mob me for wanting to make the "rich richer", remember two things. One, investment is exempt for everybody, so it could make you richer too. Of course, since most investment happens by the already rich, it does benefit them, which brings me to number two.

"You can't love jobs and hate job creators."

By show of hands, who has gotten long term employment from a poor person? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

It is investment that allows businesses to grow. If you want less of something, tax it more heavily. Washington knows this, which is why they have tax breaks out the ass for things they like, such as fuel efficient cars. Why not apply that same logic to something that puts more money in our pockets?

Also remember that Government creates nothing. As Mr. Laffer says "Jobs and wealth are created by those who are taxed, not by those who do the taxing. Government, by its very nature, doesn't create resources but redistributes resources." No amount of moving money from person A to person B by the Government is going to create a lasting job. To do that, you must grow the economy, and to do that you must plant the seeds of investment. Newt's plan, if it were to be implemented and survives to the general election, would do that.

So, point to Gingrich. Hooray.