Obama vs. Romney 101: 5 ways they differ on taxes

President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney agree on the need to overhaul the federal tax code to produce a simpler tax system with lower rates. But they disagree on whether tax reform should also increase government revenues. Here are five tax issues on which they differ.

5. Economic impact of taxes

Ed Andrieski/AP/File
Brian Seifried stands in his original Chicken Shack restaurant in Greeley, Colo., on July 12. He now has four. Seifried says the top 1 percent should contribute more taxes, but 'I don’t feel the federal government is efficient.'

Obama says higher taxes on the rich won’t choke economic growth. Romney says ensuring lower tax rates for all will rekindle growth and job creation. Both sides cite historical evidence to make their case. Here's how.

Obama's lens on history is bifocal. First, he likes to note that during his first term he cut taxes – putting breaks for businesses and individuals in his stimulus package, and then adding a payroll tax cut for working families. The message: He gets the idea that taxes shouldn't go too high.

Second, he peeks backward to argue that tax cutting isn't always helpful and that raising taxes isn't always harmful. President Clinton raised taxes on high earners, and the 1990s economy did fine. Economic confidence rose in part because tax revenues were helping to diminish federal deficits (and for a time erase them). As for the Bush years, Obama cites falling tax revenues and weak regulation among the things that "got us in the mess in the first place." Romney will repeat the mistake, he warns.

In the Romney view, history shows that low or falling taxes boost economic growth. The 1980s rebound under Ronald Reagan is a case in point. The Bush tax cuts helped to restore job growth after 2003, Republicans argue, and weren't a proximate cause of the later financial crisis or recession. In the 1990s, the economy was strong despite Clinton's tax hikes, not because of them.

Republicans also say Obama's first-term tax cuts were low-quality ones, in terms of their ability to generate job growth. They were temporary, and thus failed to give businesses and consumers a sense of policy certainty upon which to make long-term decisions. (The Obama camp argues that it’s ready to work on the long-term policies, too, but Republicans aren't willing to do a deal that boosts taxes on the rich.)

Independent economists have mixed views. Some research finds that in general, enlarging the size of government tends to slow economic growth. At the same time, one survey this year found relatively few economists favoring a no-new-taxes approach to reducing federal deficits in the US.

For a full list of stories about how Romney and Obama differ on the issues, click here.

5 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.