Romney's solution to the widest income disparity since late 1920'sSubmitted by Ian56 on Tue, 08/07/2012 - 07:15
The three graphics are not showing on DP.
Here is a link.
CEO to worker pay ratios
Top 1% share of national income 1913
Romney's solution to the widest income disparity since the late 1920's is to cut taxes for the well off (income above $200,000) and raise taxes for the middle class and poor (those earning below $200,000 p.a).
Romney's solution for executive pay getting out of control is the same.
When there are relatively small income discrepancies and a thriving middle class, the economy grows at it's fastest pace, e.g. in America in the 1950's and 1960's.
When the disparity grows too large the economy can fall off a cliff (e.g. 1930's) or we tend to get a stagnant economy (like now).
Romney's solution is to raise taxes for the middle class and cut taxes for the well off.
The rich already pay less tax as a proportion than middle income earners.
Tax legislation such as carried interest disproportionately benefit the rich. This is why Romney's tax rates are so low.
Ron Paul's solution is ZERO Federal income taxes for EVERYBODY.
Government revenues should be via duties etc. as it was for over 130 years.
The size of the Federal government should be reduced accordingly, with balanced budgets.
WSJ's Stephen Moore says that this would lead to the "the biggest job creation in history" and that it "could be done" over a period of a relatively few years.
General business confidence and business investment would soar if it was seen that the Federal Government was finally serious about getting it's budgets under control.
I do not know the details of the transition but the use of selected sales taxes that affect the rich more than the poor would be one effective way.
US taxation 1791 to 2011