The American Progress Action Fund studied Romney's plan and determined that it would produce a loss of 800,000 jobs:
"Mitt Romney's plan not to force companies to pay taxes on profits they bring back from overseas will eliminate jobs, according to a new report by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
"That's because Romney's tax plan includes eliminating the Repatriation Tax, which applies to corporations that try to bring profits made overseas back into the country, according to Bloomberg. Most multinationals find loopholes that prevent them from paying the full tax, according to CAP. That increases incentives for businesses to do more business, or store more profits, overseas.
"Between 1999 and 2010, U.S. corporations eliminated 1 million jobs at home while creating 3 million jobs abroad. Romney's plan to eliminate the Repatriation Tax altogether would simply exacerbate the problem, CAP argues.
"The tax incentives included in such a system would encourage corporations to shift more of their investments and operations overseas, costing America as many as 800,000 jobs, according to Reed College economist Kimberly Clausing. Combine that part of the plan with his idea to lower corporate tax rates to 25 percent, and it altogether could cost the U.S. Treasury more than $1 trillion, the report estimates."
Note that "between 1999 and 2010" - which includes the Bain-disputed period of 1999-2002 - "U.S. corporations eliminated 1 million jobs at home while creating 3 million jobs abroad." This is Mitt Romney's idea of "job creation"? Does he and other Republicans think it's a good idea to "encourage corporations to shift more of their investments and operations overseas"?
Evidently, Romney wants tax cuts for super-rich businessmen like him because it's good for super-rich businessmen like him. But the most annoying part of all this is that Romney and his elite rich friends don't say that. While they pose as honorable taxpayers, they and their bought legislators secretly develop an incomprehensible labyrinthe of tax loopholes/shelters/havens which cut taxes for the super-rich to miniscule amounts.
The arguments we have on the tax rates is phony. The arguments we have about reducing loopholes like the mortgage deduction is phony too. The arguments we should have is about all the parts of the tax structure the super-rich use to reduce their taxes. Let's argue about whether the capital gains tax should be lower or higher than tax on earned income, whether people and companies should be busted or not for using tax havens, whether taxes on employers should be increased or decreased for shipping jobs overseas.
Mitt Romney's tax policy favors the side of each argument that favors the super-rich. President Obama's policy favors the side of each argument that favors the middle class. Mitt Romney will maintain the huge inequality we suffer from. Barack Obama will improve the fortunes of those not doing so well today. The choice is clear.