Mitt tin man (Photo credit: JonMartinTravelPhotography)
I’ve been trying to keep a lid on my personal political views on the off chance that there’s someone in my area who actually likes Mitt but jeez, I’ve just about bitten through my tongue. And I’m only grinding my teeth over the second debate—I got stuck on Mitt announcing with glee that under his tax plan (I guess he has one somewhere) the middle class taxpayer would no longer pay taxes on dividends, capital gains, or savings.
Ugh, these dumb statements are making my box of rocks so heavy that I just have to say something…and Barack, why didn’t you jump on that? You need a fee-only financial planner on your debate team. (If I have one complaint against our President, it’s that he has no instinct to go for the jugular. Actually, maybe that’s not so bad.) Aside from the fact that none of us actually pays taxes on savings, a large share of my clients aren’t exactly living off their currently-taxable dividends or capital gains, either. Whoops, that would be Mitt himself, who might just get out of paying anything at all, much less the pitiful 13% or 14% his accountants couldn’t figure out how to weasel out of.
I’m happy when my clients are maxing out their 401ks or 403bs and maybe managing a Roth or some sort of IRA and a college savings plan. For most people, the bulk of their investments are already sheltered in these accounts, or plunked into their house. People who have significant investments outside of their retirement savings are also less likely to be “middle class” by any usual income tax definition—they’re at least waving at the 1%. BTW, the top 1% is actually those earning over $343K, but since both candidates seem to like a $250K figure, let’s just go with that.
So let’s just say you somehow managed to accumulate or inherit $100,000 in a brokerage account or some mutual funds that are in plain vanilla taxable accounts. Let’s say you plunked that $100K in a Total Stock Market Index fund, which yields about 1.8% right now (I’m not considering capital gains here, just the dividends, because I’m assuming for now that you just hold on to it). So, each year you’re getting $1,800 in dividends and paying $270 in taxes. Gee thanks, Mitt, I’d sure like to give up my home mortgage interest deduction and get back $270 instead. In other words, these ballyhooed savings are pretty insignificant compared to the stuff that might really count—like more secure retirement funding, college cost reduction, etc. I’d be willing to give up that $270 if I didn’t have to cough up $25K/year for college or wring my hands about long-term care insurance or the myriad of other things we Americans are “free” to purchase in the open marketplace, but which every other Western nation provides for their citizens.
How about retired people—maybe that will help them? Let’s ignore the 1/3 of retirees that are living on Social Security alone—after all, Mitt does (ignores them, that is). For most of the people I see who would fall into the “middle class”, the bulk of their income is coming from 401ks, 403bs, etc., and those withdrawals are taxed as ordinary income, anyway. There are very, very few people who could be classified as both “middle class” and who have significant income from capital gains or dividends. There’s another name for people who live on investments that generate significant capital gains, interest, and dividends—they’re called “rich”. Or maybe, friends of Mitt.
And what about the clients that ARE coupon clippers (bonds, not newspapers)? No one yet has come into my office saying that lower taxes would solve all their money problems. Across the board, my clients are worried about retirement, college costs, job security or business viability, and the cost of long term care. On the other hand, I do see plenty of people who feel they’ve been robbed by the financial “services” industry, whatever their income, investment or education level. But I doubt that that’s on Mitt’s radar. After all, those folks are friends of Mitt, too.
