Libertarian Joanne Skousen has a point about Romney's low tax rate that most people miss—Romney doesn't have a job. This is his savings, his retirement income that he he's paying tax on.
by Jo Ann Skousen | Posted October 20, 2012
Each time Barack Obama and his supporters sniff disdainfully at the 14% of his income that Mitt Romney paid in taxes, I want to shout at them to acknowledge the obvious: Romney does not have earned income.
In the private sector, companies expect their employees to come to work every day. Romney isn’t gainfully employed, because he has spent the past two years campaigning for office. Of course, Barack Obama has spent the past three years campaigning. He has missed important security briefings and delegated most of his duties to others. He does very little actual work and campaigns on the taxpayers’ dime. If you or I tried that, we would have to use up all our vacation days and then take time off without pay — assuming that our employers would be willing to keep us on the books (and the benefits) while we are off job hunting.
Romney paid a higher tax rate when he was working and earning an income. He pays plenty now on his investment income (the principal of which was already taxed at earned-income rates). More important to me than his 14% tax rate is the fact that he has chosen to give away nearly 30% of his income to charities and causes he believes in.[More]
I'd also add that not only is Romney a 65-year-old white man with no job (not actually suffering—his "savings" amount to something like $250 million dollars) he's also obviously a victim of affirmative action.
The same thing happened in 2008, when the job he and various other qualified white people were seeking was taken by first term Senator Barack Obama, and it may happen again today that the job he wants will be taken by an (arguably unqualified) minority.
Many people in his position just give up and retire.
Cue Jesse Helms's "White Hands" ad: