The American Dilemma and How We Can Fix It

Some of my younger readers may be unfamiliar with Jimmy Durante.  That is unfortunate as he was one of the more important comics and radio personalities of his era.  But beyond his professional career he was much more – a truly charitable and loving human being.

Durante was born in New York in 1893 and passed away in 1980.  He was the youngest of four children born to immigrant Italian parents and dropped out of school in the eighth grade to become a full-time ragtime pianist.

He was active in vaudeville and wrote a song which became his theme song, “Inka Dinka Doo.”  That, together with the nickname, “The Schnozolla” because of his oversized proboscis and his television signoff “Goodnight Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are,” (as he admitted years later, a tribute to his first wife who had passed away), were his signature trademarks.  As were his gravelly voice and unique punctuation of speech.  He was, during his time, an American icon.

Jimmy Durante never had children of his own, which was unfortunate since he loved kids so much.  But he found an outlet for this love by raising money for children who needed medical help or were abused.

A devout Roman Catholic, in 1958 on the Feast of the Assumption, he was presented with a three foot tall cup by the Al Bahr Shriners Temple.  The inscription read, “JIMMY DURANTE THE WORLD’S MOST FAMOUS COMEDIAN.  It’s bigger than your nose, but smaller than your heart.”

Durante was actively involved in raising money through the Fraternal Order of Eagles for “his kids”.  He regularly appeared at Eagles’ conventions and fundraisers, performing for free and refusing reimbursement for travel expenses.  When he made a plea for contributions, he would say, “It’s for da kids.”

So why would Jimmy Durante never had made it as a candidate for President of the United States?  If the current climate and thinking prevailed during his lifetime, his very acts of charity might have undermined his election to the White House.  Or so it appears to this writer based on the unfortunately irrelevant buzz over candidate Romney’s tax returns.

Let me be honest, I had hoped but didn’t expect, that this campaign would be about substance.  Well, my hopes might have been dashed but my expectations are intact.

So, since so many of the (very, very many) ads which camp Obama has been airing point to Mitt Romney’s tax returns as a reason that people should not vote for him, I thought it might be interesting to put this whole income tax business in perspective.

Implicit in the ads is the suggestion that by paying 14% of his income, there is something nefarious going on with Mr. Romney’s responsibility as a taxpaying citizen.  Of course, that is never said in the ads – but that is certainly the clear implication – at least to this viewer.

There is something definitely wrong with our tax code.  We’ve discussed this in numerous posts.  The President thinks we can “fix” it by raising the amount we charge upper income tax payers.  This is roughly the equivalent of trying to stem the catastrophe that befell New Orleans as a result of Hurricane Katrina by having a few thousand people stand outside in the downpour, each of them holding a thimble to collect the waters.

The system is convoluted and unfair in many ways to many taxpayers.  It should be scrapped and something that is equitable and understandable should replace it.  Just think of the supernumeraries at the IRS whose jobs could be eliminated and the consequent reduction we would experience in bloated bureaucratic salaries – a great first step toward balancing a budget.  But that may be then and this is now.

As long as we have to deal with the framework of tax payments under the current law, let’s look at the reason that Mitt Romney pays at such a comparatively low rate.  Most of the discussions I’ve heard on this subject deal with his paying at lower capital gains rates, a form of income which holds a preferred status under the current law.  That is in part true.  And the reason that capital gains are so treated is that they represent a return on investment, a return on risk capital, the risk capital that catapulted America into the greatest economic dynamo on planet Earth.

But setting aside that economic argument, there is one other thing that “distorts” Mitt Romney’s income tax rate.  That is the amount of his charitable contributions.  By my math, if Romney chose not to give away a penny each year rather than the $3 Million or so that appears on his returns, his effective income tax rate would just about double to 28%.  But that would still leave him and his wife with well more than $2 Million in their pockets – even after paying taxes on this money.

When Jimmy Durante appeared without accepting any fees for entertaining during his fundraising events, he “Did it for da kids.”

While I don’t have any special insight into Mitt Romney’s mind, perhaps the reason that he and his wife are so generous is that it is for the pure and wholesome virtue of giving for the sake of giving.  Would that we had more citizens who were like-minded.

Advertisements

Comments on: "WHY JIMMY DURANTE COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT" (2)

  1. That brings back memories of long ago.

  2. …And a galaxy far, far away.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: