Romney Advisor Uses Charity to Justify Tax Cut Extensions for Rich

Print Share on LinkedIn More

July 9, 2012; Source:

We knew it had to happen sometime. Yesterday morning on Morning Joe, Mike Barnicle asked Dan Senor, a senior advisor to presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, how Romney could justify extending tax cuts to the rich. “Why do so many people who are beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts pay at a rate of 15% or 16%, and I’m paying at a rate of 35%?” he asked.

Whereupon Senor answered, “Well, there’s a number of factors, not the least of which … ”

“My income,” interrupted barnicle.

“Yeah—but the charitable deductions,” said Senor, “So, a lot of people if they weren’t giving a lot to charity, they’d be paying much higher than the 15%—they’d pay 19%, 20%, 21%—so there’s a number of factors that go into that reduced number.”

The irascible Barnicle asked Senor if he would congratulate him for not bursting out laughing but, honestly, we are just in awe of the chutzpa.—Ruth McCambridge

  • Jerold Kappel

    Philanthropy is related to GDP and consumer spending, and fluctuates between 1.7% and 2% no matter the income tax rates. There has been some argument that higher income tax and estate tax rates actually spur giving in order to gain a tax advantage. Other studies have shown that may not be true, but keeping lower tax rates on those earning over $250,000 will not spur increased giving that will offset the loss of services because of federal and state cutbacks due to deficits.

  • Audry Hardy

    Amazing…Poor people give too much & get the charitable deduction which disadvantages rich people who need a tax cut. This logic seems a little out of touch with common reasoning.

  • Mike

    You realize that nonprofits are hurt by taxation and government spending, don’t you?

    And since taxation is theft, you seem like not being robbed, or being robbed less requires justification?

  • B Levin

    In a study funded by Google and done by Indiana University, the summary showed the higher the income of Americans the lower their percentage of giving to charity. So there is empirical data that Mr. Senior is incorrect in his ascertion.

  • Toni

    Guess we should put this discussion in a different frame of reference for Republican politicians and wealthy taxpayers. The federal government is quickly becoming a “charity” in need of their support, too! And, taxes are a required contributation which is not the same as a voluntary donation which may or may not happen. Let’s not forget that many Americans make charitable donations and most of them don’t get the kind/amount of tax write-off that weathier Americans get for doing the same thing.

  • Nancy Powers

    Nothing new — Ronald Reagan’s mantra was the same trickle down theory.

  • Dick Goldbaum

    I am disappointed that LinkedIn would use a quote from an organization that is so left leaning that it is more out of balance than the leaning tower of Pisa. NPQ is part of the Obama Media supporters. I have recently dropped my membership and subscription to that publication.

    The question that was asked by Barnicle inidcates that he has no understanding between Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax. Mr. Senor missed a teachable moment and should have educated him and his readers of the difference. Restoring the tax on the so called wealthy will provide enough new money to the Federal Governement to keep it running for 8.5 days. Wow that will really turn our ecomiony around. Do the readers or even the NPQ publishers understand that the restoration of the taxes being considered will impact families with small businesses. The so called “death tax” will go up therefore heirs will be hurt.

    Why doesn’t NPQ address the increasing crisis of more people on food stamps and the increasing rolls of those on Social Security Disability Insuance. We are close to a fifty percent of the total population being on some form of public support, while close to fifty percent of the population aren’t paying federal taxes. Tell me if that is FAIR as our Marxist President keeps talking about. NO NEW TAXES FOR ANYONE DURING THIS TIME OF ECONOMIC DISTRESS! IT IS TIME TO CUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING. IMPLEMENT A REDUCTION OF FEDERAL JOBS BY ATTRITION – NO GOVERNMENT HIRING FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS. THAT IS JUST ONE SIMPLE WAY TO REDUCE THE GROWTH OF GOVERNMENT.


  • jules

    There are just no words, really, no words!!!

  • jules

    again, there are just no words for the stuff that some people say!!! My mouth is still hanging open at the audacity of the man’s comment!!